Obviously I support the move to the EPL since I've been suggesting it for 2 1/2 years. We covered all this stuff in excruciating detail a couple of years ago, so you can find a lot of information in the previous messages I sent on the topic:
http://argouml.markmail.org/search/?q=copyright+license+from%3A%22tfmorris%40tigris.org%22+from%3A%22Tom+Morris%22#query:copyright%20license%20from%3Atfmorris%40tigris.org%20from%3A%22Tom%20Morris%22%20list%3Aorg.tigris.argouml.dev+page:1+mid:wn4n5yny4dt4ulwg+state:facets Here's one of the first ones from 2006 which covers not only the license, but also ownership of the ArgoUML brand, another intellectual property issue: http://markmail.org/message/wn4n5yny4dt4ulwg As for the copyright holder, ArgoEclipse has been using "<initial author> and other contributors" in the copyright statement, similar to what the Eclipse Foundation does. I'd recommend the same course of action for ArgoUML (naturally). Whatever is chosen, it has to be something that works in the legal system. Personally, for any module which was created from scratch and only modified by currently active developers, I'd ask for them to relicense it immediately, so that the old Berkeley copyright notice can be removed. Obviously this won't work for any code derived from the original UCI legacy code. I'd also ask them to include a simple statement saying that they own all rights to the code they submitted (ie it's not covered by an employee agreement, conflicting license, etc). linus> Set the Copyright holder to something less formal such as "ArgoUML project", "contributors to the ArgoUML project", "contributor to this file". There is no legal entity called "ArgoUML project" or "ArgoUML team." The copyright holder must be a legal entity. linus> Defer the license change even further to get help from the Conservancy. Delay is rarely a good idea. It's how the project got where it is today. Every new module which is created with the screwed up header makes the problem worse. linus> Make an announcement of this and contact all contributors (I plan to do this). It's a nice courtesy, but there's no legal need to contact the authors, if you assume the original license is valid, unless you want to get them to change the original licensing terms for their code (ie remove the University of California copyright for code created after the initial open sourcing). If you're just going to use the EPL from this point forward, they don't need to be involved. The thing that could be cleared up by contacting the authors is the grey area about who owns the code they contributed and what their licensing intentions were. That will only clarify current status though, it doesn't have any impact on the license change. maas> So we need to contact the "Regents of the University of California" to change the copyright now? No, the current BSD license grants permission to create derivative works under a different license as long as the original license is respected. maas> What are the rights of this "Copyright holder" ? Does it means that our code belongs to them ? Yes, the copyright holder is the owner of the code and can sell it or do anything else they want with it. The copyright ownership of the University of California Regents is questionable, in my opinion, for new code which was created by authors who were not employees of the University, but a lawyer who was trying to make trouble would argue that the act of affixing the copyright header to the newly created module indicated an intent to transfer ownership from the author to UCI. My reply would be that this was a mechanical action of the software tools with no implied intent, and certainly no contractual implications. In all the countries that I'm familiar with copyright in a work (ie source module) is established by the author the moment the work is created. Each person who subsequently modifies the work has a copyright in a derivative work based on the original work. Two things of interest can modify this: you can transfer copyrights that you own to someone else (not in all countries) and you can license use of the code to someone else. License can be free or not, perpetual or not, sub-licenseable or not, worldwide or constrained to a geography, etc, etc. Copyrights and licenses are separate, but related things, both incredibly important from an intellectual property point of view. andreas> But I'd definitely talk to the UCI lawyers, before those licenses are changed... As I mentioned above, this isn't necessary unless you'd like to get an affirmative statement from them that they claim no rights to new code that was created by non-employees (ie the code that mistakenly had UCI copyright headers applied to it, but which isn't covered by a formal transfer of copyright ownership). Being lawyers, they are going to be very reluctant to sign something which gives up a potential right, even if it's a right that they don't actually have. Bob> Why is University of California the copyright holder? The reason for the original copyright is most likely because a University of California @Irvine (UCI) employee was the principal author. UCI likely owned commercial licensing rights to software produced by its employees (and perhaps students) through their employment agreements. For anyone who codes for a living, your employment agreement probably contains similar language. For all modules newly created by people who were not employees over the past decade, the sole reason for the copyright notice is the project leaders' requirements. It's hard to over emphasize who important this stuff is and the damage that delaying does. If you're going to rehash it all, I'd suggest that you set yourselves a deadline and actively manage the discussion to a resolution. I'd also suggest limiting the discussion to active contributors. One of the people who derailed things last time was someone who never contributed a single line of code to the project. Tom p.s. ArgoEclipse uses the EPL, so if that's your preference, we'd love to have you contribute. ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=1393167 To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]]. To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email: [[email protected]]
