> I say I copyright the work I do and offer it to others under the GPL to
control usage.
> He says it should not be copyrighted, rather just offered to others under
GPL.
You are correct. Any person who wants you to sign away your rights
knowingly submits themselves to unabated scrutiny. GPL is a licensing
mechanism. It does not transfer copyright.
I have things I've been working on for years, and have never transferred
copyright, but they remain useful to my employers and others. On the other
hand, work I have done which is copyrighted by someone else, however was
forever lost when I changed jobs. This group has been denied literally
years of health care development work because I did not retain the control I
wanted when I started working in health care seven years ago.
IMHO, I would ***DEFINITELY NOT***** assign past copyright (unless you get
offered tens of millions of dollars). Unless you sign something
specifically assigning past copyright, the assumption is that it is not
transferred. Not only is it non-standard in the software industry without
appropriate fees, it's selling yourself short. As for future works, you
should think carefully. Copyright is what gives you the ability to control
distribution of a particular work, among other things.
There is a discussion list somewhere to deal with this issue, so perhaps the
details of this question belong in a discussion there. But with respect to
our work on the openhealth list:
- copyright is what gives us the ability to control distribution of a
particular work. In the U.S. It's important to retain that right, because
U.S. law will protect even the humble programmer. It's not always cheap or
easy to defend, but it is defendable.
- in other countries, a U.S. copyright can be null and void, unless
that country is a member of the WTO - do your research to find out how this
fact will prevent you from safeguarding your work.
- without some entity having a copyright, there is not way to control
distribution which makes it very difficult to defend the GPL (IMHO) or other
license in court. This makes the work open season for companies like IBM
who want to "borrow" the code for their own work.
Say for example the OIO for Outcomes product is inappropriately used by IBM
in a proprietary work, and Dr. Ho (the author) finds out about it. If he
has assigned copyright to another company like the Free Software Foundation,
he can do nothing legally. If he retains the copyright, he can make demands
of IBM to remedy the situation. Going to court of course is very expensive,
but may not be necessary. There is arbitration, mediation, and of course
having a relationship with IBM directly may help . . . but the fact is that
Dr. Ho has the legal means he needs to protect his work. Dr. Ho's
protections also apply to every country in the WTO, because the U.S. is in
the WTO. So, if IBM in Canada were to violate Dr. HO's copyright, Dr. Ho
can petition the U.S. government to take issue with Canada through the WTO.
This affects our group deeply, because we're international in nature.
You're well advised to look into this for your own purposes, and hire legal
council if necessary.
Hope that helps...
Richard Schilling
Webmaster / Web Integration Programmer
Affiliated Health Services
Mount Vernon, WA USA
http://www.affiliatedhealth.org <http://www.affiliatedhealth.org/>
phone: 360.856.7129
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Slater, MD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: To get back to Medical Open Source
I have been debating the use of copyright with my mentor.
I say I copyright the work I do and offer it to others under the GPL to
control usage.
He says it should not be copyrighted, rather just offered to others under
GPL.
When I go to work officially for his organization, do I keep my personal
copyright?
Or do I assign copyright for past and new work to his organization?
Appreciate hearing what others do.
Thanks.
Bruce Slater
