On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Charles-H. Schulz < charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all, (apologies for this quite long email) > > I would like to discuss a bit the position of the Document Foundation > with respect to copyright assignments. I understand there have been > questions here and there about this topic, and it's perhaps necessary > to explain our position. > > We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code > contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right > decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute to the > LibreOffice codebase or extend it by localizing it and testing > LibreOffice. > > We knew ever since the beginning that imposing a copyright assignment > would be a big minus for developers. For one thing, it represents > complexity for developers, and on the other hand, the experience we had > with the copyright assignment under the stewardship of Oracle speaks > for itself. It is also worth noting that in practical terms, the bulk > of the LibreOffice codebase, that is, everything except our new > patches, our new code, the localizations, the hacks, etc. is still > under copyright from Oracle. Also, as a warning of sorts, keep in mind > that copyright assignments are not the same thing as software licenses. > > I am going to write below some of the reasons why I also think that not > having a copyright assignment is either a good idea or does not really > matter at all. > > 1) no one has yet been able to clearly articulate what advantage we > would gain by having one for TDF. For instance, it's not at all clear, > and is in fact quite likely than any major software vendor would be > shunned away from our project if we had a copyright assignment: it > would basically mean that we would own their "intellectual property", > and I'm not so sure it flies well with corporate lawyers in charge of > protecting it. > > 2) the state of the art in terms of such assignments is changing > rapidly. We stand at a corner of FOSS history, where the realization > that projects led by one vendor only tend to fail, unless the vendor > itself puts others in charge of the projects and gives free reins to > its community. Look at what's happening with Fedora with respect to > its ditching of copyright assignments. Experiences in other projects > show that the "protection" that such assignments provide is at best > minimal, and most of the times quickly abused, most of the time by its > steward. > > 3) copyright assignments are not blocking the reuse of code or > anything similar; there are several reasons for this, but one which is > practical: a few years ago, you had a central branch with a tool like > CVS. In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. There was my > branch and you were contributing to it. Now, many projects use similar > tools, except that they are in fact quite different: they are > distributed: there are as many different copies as there are > developers; and the choice is social (people agree on what's best or > respect the guy who has the biggest beard or something like this). So > people create a big heap of code, and if they want to create their own > stuff in their own corner, they do it; they don't deal with > hierarchies, and paperwork. If they're not happy, they leave. That's > how it works today. BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed > SCM. > > 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have > copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. > There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any > lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo > code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3 > or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo > into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to > change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. > > 5) based on my 4) point, you can object that without a copyright > assignment, we would be stuck with the same license for ever, since we > would not be able to decide to change the license of our lines of > code. In fact, the problem lies in the heap of code we would have to > change in order to be able to turn the whole code into something > else... but here's what the developers of LibreOffice did: they simply > didn't change the license, they started to license their own changes > under the same license (LGPL V3)... and added : "or +" after it. So the > license will change or at least be modified that way. But what if we > want to change the whole thing? well, we'll contact all the authors who > got their code into LibreOffice. We have their emails, etc. And if some > of them don't agree with us, then perhaps we'll have to redevelop their > own code. > > 6) there is also a confusion between copyright assignment and copyright > protection. True, when you assign code to the FSF, you do expect to be > legally protected against unpleasant surprises. But developers can also > decide they don't like the FSF so you will have lost your > effective control over what you develop. One might object, then, that > if someone sues you, you would be better off with an entity > protecting you. Usually, the patent trolls and the suers on code of > this world don't attack individuals. They attack entities with money. > On to the money question... > > 7) what if we had money to protect our code? Well, we may still not want > to lose developers for that. But we could do something else: acting as > the defenders of all the copyright owners. And then, it does not > require a copyright assignment, it only requires, if a problem arises, > that enough contributors or all the contributors signs a small paper > saying "The Document Foundation is representing us legally in xyz case". > That's all. > > Your questions are welcome, but I hope it helped clarified this > question. > I understand not requiring any form of copyright assignment, but what about voluntary copyright assignment? -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
