Driven by curiosity about the physical address listed in the GPLv2 license, a developer sent a letter to the Free Software Foundation's old Boston address. While expecting it to be returned undeliverable, it surprisingly reached the FSF's current address. They responded with a friendly letter acknowledging the old address, explaining its history, and expressing gratitude for the developer's interest and community support. The FSF included a copy of the original GPLv2 printed documentation, highlighting the very address that prompted the letter.
In a detailed blog post titled "I wrote to the address in the GPLv2 license notice (2022)," author Mendhak describes his curiosity about the physical address listed within the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2), specifically the FSF's address at 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. Driven by a blend of nostalgia and curiosity about the practical relevance of this address in the digital age of software licensing, he undertook a small personal experiment.
Mendhak meticulously documented his process of crafting a physical letter, choosing a specific font reminiscent of typewriters to enhance the old-school feel of the correspondence, and including a return address. The content of the letter itself was a simple inquiry about the continued validity of the listed address for GPLv2-related matters. He carefully photographed the addressed envelope and the letter itself, sharing these images within the blog post to illustrate his actions for readers.
After mailing the letter, Mendhak patiently awaited a response. The blog post then chronicles the eventual arrival of a reply, not directly from the FSF at the 51 Franklin Street address, but from the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) located at a different address. The SFC's response, also reproduced photographically in the post, explained that they now handle GPLv2 compliance matters on behalf of the Free Software Foundation, providing a dedicated email address for such inquiries. The letter clarified that while the FSF still maintains a presence at the 51 Franklin Street location, it no longer serves as the primary contact point for GPLv2 compliance.
Mendhak concludes his post by expressing satisfaction at receiving a response, recognizing the shift in how such matters are handled in the present day, and musing on the evolving nature of communication and the enduring presence of physical addresses within legal documents like the GPLv2. He acknowledges the slightly melancholic feeling of witnessing a piece of history fade into the background while appreciating the practicality and efficiency of the updated communication methods.
Summary of Comments ( 204 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43781888
Commenters on Hacker News largely focused on the nostalgic and whimsical nature of the author's attempt to contact the FSF via the postal address listed in the GPLv2. Several expressed surprise that the address was still valid and even more surprised that someone actually mailed a letter. Some reminisced about the early days of software and the prevalence of physical addresses in licenses. A few questioned the practicality of including such an address in modern licenses, while others appreciated the historical significance and human touch it represents. The top comment highlighted the absurdity of sending sensitive legal notices to a PO Box, sparking a discussion about the evolution of communication and legal practices in the software world. Another compelling comment thread explored the implications of the GPLv2's termination clause and its potential impact on unknowingly violating the license.
The Hacker News post "I wrote to the address in the GPLv2 license notice (2022)" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their thoughts and experiences.
A recurring theme is the historical context of the address and the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) operations. Several commenters pointed out that the address listed in GPLv2 predates the FSF's move to Boston, referencing its origins in Massachusetts. Some users shared anecdotal memories of visiting or interacting with the FSF at or around that time, painting a picture of a smaller, more accessible organization in its early days.
Some commenters speculated on the current state of the mailbox, wondering if it's still checked or if mail sent there even reaches the FSF. One user, claiming to have worked near the old address, suggested the building had been converted into condominiums, raising doubts about the mailbox's continued functionality.
Several comments focused on the practicalities and legalities of the GPL's notice requirements. Commenters debated the significance of including the address in derivative works and the potential implications of its absence. Some suggested it's a historical artifact with limited current relevance, while others emphasized the importance of adhering to the license's terms, regardless of perceived practicality.
A few commenters shared their personal interpretations of the GPL's intentions. Some viewed the address requirement as a symbolic gesture, representing a connection to the FSF and the free software movement. Others saw it as a practical measure, providing a point of contact for legal or logistical inquiries.
There's a thread discussing the broader implications of software licensing and the challenges of maintaining open-source projects. Commenters touched on the complexities of copyright law, the burden on developers, and the evolving landscape of software distribution.
Finally, some commenters simply expressed amusement or appreciation for the author's initiative in writing to the address, acknowledging the whimsical nature of the endeavor. The thread also includes a few lighthearted exchanges and personal anecdotes related to the FSF and the free software community.