On 8/22/2012 12:07 PM, Matt Shaver wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:40:06 +0300 > "Alex Joni" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Last emc1 version was 1.2.0-rc1 iirc, >> you can still find the CVS tree for emc1 here: >> http://emc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/emc/emc/ > Thanks Alex! > > I've been doing some research into copyright law to determine if > Michael Haberler can use free software components (like 0MQ) that are > available only under licenses that may conflict with the licenses under > which Linuxcnc is made available. > > <...> > A. In the beginning, this was mostly a “work of the United States > Government” which means, "a work prepared by an officer or employee > of the United States Government as part of that person’s official > duties". > > <...> > C. According to U.S. copyright law, "Copyright protection under this > title is not available for any work of the United States Government, > but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and > holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or > otherwise." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105) > > D. I'm not sure if 'not copyright protect-able' is the same as 'being > in the public domain'. I can't cite an explanation of this and it > seems too important to ignore.
As I said once before, I was never sure what being in the public domain meant when I was at NIST so I never claimed it. After making that statement I did some digging of my own. Apparently, being in the public domain means being copyright-free. For example, see http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, where various works for which copyright protection has expired and not been renewed are declared to be in the public domain. Recent declarations I found on the NIST website identify specific things as not subject to copyright and in the public domain, but that wasn't the language we used when I joined. Laws change. Lawyers argue. > E. As far as I know, all the earliest non-governmental participants in > the EMC project, including GM's Pontiac Powertran Division, Boeing, > and me signed Cooperative Research And Development Agreements > (CRADAs) in which the government agreed to help with research if the > participants disclaimed any intellectual property interests, > including copyrights, in the results. I'll see if I can dig up my > copy of this just for completeness. I urge you to find your copy. Every CRADA my group executed was based on a standard prototype agreement (which changed over time) but each had its own customized clauses based on negotiations between the Office of General Counsel at NIST and counterparts in the cooperating private-industry partners. For example, my group's CRADAs protected copyrighted material contributed by our private-industry partners, according to the "...is not precluded from receiving and holding..." clause in paragraph C. above. You can't afford to generalize. > > F. At some time, after my involvement began, and probably before the > move to Sourceforge, I believe some part(s) of EMC became a "joint > work", which means "a work prepared by two or more authors with the > intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or > interdependent parts of a unitary whole". I believe it became a > "joint work" rather than a "derivative work" because the intent was > always collaboration on successive versions of a single work. For a > summary of the doctrine of "joint works" see: > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/joint/links/articles/lape.html Yep, this is the stinker. > <...> > II. Some other author of the "joint work" started by NIST can exercise > their right to re-license the use of this part of Linuxcnc in a > compatible way to aid Mr. Haberler in his endeavor. > > The above assumes that all the work to be done affects only the NIST > originated portions of Linuxcnc. The authors of the other parts of > Linuxcnc will have to decide what they want to do with respect to this > issue. Since most of these other parts are also "joint works", any of > their authors can unilaterally re-license their work to be compatible > with the new 0MQ using version. I would suggest however, that these > decisions be made in consultation with as many of the co-authors of > their respective works as can be found, out of respect for democratic > ideals and to preserve the peace. This was the "first step" issue I was concerned about. > Finally, I feel that these copyright law issues should be considered > when deciding the future form of Linuxcnc. Assuming we all desire > essentially "share and share alike" licensing, rewriting the NIST > originated code would eliminate any ambiguity in the licensing status > of this part of the code. I also strongly suggest that the various > parts of the Linuxcnc system be separated into libraries or standalone > programs as much as is practical. This will help define who the authors > of each piece are, aid testability through modularity, and maximize the > hazard to any hostile party attempting to use the code outside the > terms of the licensing. Amen, brother. > Thanks, > Matt > > and thank you, Matt. After my immoderate recent missives I decided I should not pursue the subject further since, in the language of court proceedings I read about in the newspaper, I don't have "standing" (e.g., I am neither an original nor---at least not yet---a current contributor to the LinuxCNC codebase). I'm glad you have. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
