[SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

"BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
this.

I know there are thousands of licenses I would like to classify them:

a) BSD like - use how you want includes Public Domain.
b) LGPL like - for libraries.
c) GPL like - can never be used in conjunction with closed programs.
d) Corporate - pay for use in many forms - includes shareware.

For the record.  I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source
license.

a)  It allows me as a professional programmer to use it anywhere I want.

b) It obligates the me as a professional programmer to release any
patches back to the community.  The moral clause it you like.

Please play nice!

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> For the record. I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source license.

Don't go down this road. "Open Source" and "Free Software" have definitions.

You may feel that the LGPL is an excellent choice for your intent with a
particular piece of software, but use an MIT license for something else, and
that's okay. There's nothing "True" or untrue about either - it's all FOSS
anyway.

Choosing the right FOSS license will always be a compromise between what you
want to achieve technically, your moral perspective on software freedom, who
you want using it in which way, etc. There's no one answer.

[ Me? I much prefer the GPL and the LGPL for my own output, when I have the
choice. But that's because I'm a commercial whore, bartering style. :-) ]

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
  "Once this door opens, happiness waits for us. I wush to meet happiness
   as soon as possible by opening the door with key. Can you follow this
   change? Willfully darling!" - from engrish.com
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

> "BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
> quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
> this.

Other opinions on what? "True Open Source"? Your licence classification
scheme below? If you mean "True Open Source", then I think this debate
is a bit loaded for me. I'm not much of a One True Way person. I'm still
of the "that's nice of them!" camp:

"They let me distribute it? That's nice of them, they don't have to do
that!"

If you want opinions on what licences we like, here's mine:

 - for example code: as loose as possible, looser than LGPL. If my code
   aims to give people an idea of how to write a certain kind of code, I
   don't want them to worry about when something is or isn't a derived
   work;

 - for small scripts: BSD or MIT for similar reasons to example code;
   and

 - for larger projects: LGPL or GPL, because I tend to be interested in
   the health of the project more than the ability of people to use the
   code for whatever purpose they like (distributing the code is healthy
   for the project, distributing changes is healthy, but "making a
   closed source fork" isn't because it won't help the project grow).

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Benno]

On Sat Jun 05, 2004 at 12:13:13 +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:
>
>"BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
>quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
>this.
>
>I know there are thousands of licenses I would like to classify them:
>
>a) BSD like - use how you want includes Public Domain.
>b) LGPL like - for libraries.
>c) GPL like - can never be used in conjunction with closed programs.
>d) Corporate - pay for use in many forms - includes shareware.
>
>For the record.  I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source
>license.
>
>a)  It allows me as a professional programmer to use it anywhere I want.
>
>b) It obligates the me as a professional programmer to release any
>patches back to the community.  The moral clause it you like.
>
>Please play nice!

BSD and public domain are different. BSD allows you to retain your copyright,
whereas public domain does not.

That said, to me a license is a tool, and, like any tool, there is
no universal "right" or "best" one, it entirely depends on the project
and motivations for releasing the code.

I most prefer BSD because I think my code is good, and useful, and having
it used anywhere, including a commercial project, is a good thing[tm].

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 12:13, Ken Foskey wrote:
> "BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
> quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
> this.

That quote is probably from a "open source good, free software bad"
minded person. Shrug. 

> I know there are thousands of licenses I would like to classify them:
> 
> a) BSD like - use how you want includes Public Domain.

Which BSD - with or without advertising clause? :}. 

I think your taxonomy has some issues, in that it both conflates some
key issues, and is wrong.

I.e. the GPL is perfectly compatible *within an organisation* with
proprietary code. It's just not compatible when the time comes to
*distribute* said code. And lastly, I don't think that 'corporate' is a
good label for your 'pay-for-use' category. I know a number of
individuals that release under pay-for-use with and with-out code
licences. You might find the creative commons licences a good place to
review the general concepts applicable...

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Felix Sheldon]

Ken Foskey wrote:
"BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
this.
 

Maybe it is the "one true OS license", but maybe we don't actually need 
or want a 'true OS license' in every case.

I know there are thousands of licenses I would like to classify them:
a) BSD like - use how you want includes Public Domain.
b) LGPL like - for libraries.
c) GPL like - can never be used in conjunction with closed programs.
d) Corporate - pay for use in many forms - includes shareware.
 

There are many ways to use code, at runtime, linking, directly copying 
in full or just taking bits of it. I think the Free software licenses 
are not so much about what you can and can't do, just that you must 
*always* provide source to anyone else who will 'use' (by normal 
execution) a work incorporating it.

Where GPL and LGPL differ is the definition of 'a work incorporating 
it', such that software which just calls the existing LGPL code at 
runtime is not counted as 'incorporating' it, so is not covered by the 
requirement to provide source.

For the record.  I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source
license.
a)  It allows me as a professional programmer to use it anywhere I want.
 

Yeah, but the 'use' you have here may not be not the same as 'use' in 
all the cases above.

b) It obligates the me as a professional programmer to release any
patches back to the community.  The moral clause it you like.
Personally, I'd like to encourage as much open source development as 
possible, so I'd go with pure GPL for any library code I might want to 
release.

Please play nice!
 

My take on it is that anyone is free to use GPL code for whatever they 
wish. If they want to give it to someone else, it's not them using it 
anymore, it's the recipient. Thanks to the GPL, the recipient can then 
do whatever they like with it too. There is no point where someone is 
'not allowed' to do something with the source.

Felix
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> My take on it is that anyone is free to use GPL code for whatever they
> wish. If they want to give it to someone else, it's not them using it
> anymore, it's the recipient. Thanks to the GPL, the recipient can then do
> whatever they like with it too. There is no point where someone is 'not
> allowed' to do something with the source.

There are all sorts of things you're not allowed to do with GPL source. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
"How was the opera?"
 "The seats were very comfortable."
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Felix Sheldon]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

 

My take on it is that anyone is free to use GPL code for whatever they
wish. If they want to give it to someone else, it's not them using it
anymore, it's the recipient. Thanks to the GPL, the recipient can then do
whatever they like with it too. There is no point where someone is 'not
allowed' to do something with the source.
   

There are all sorts of things you're not allowed to do with GPL source. :-)
- Jeff
 

I can copy it, compile it, run it, modify it, extend it, combine it with 
other code, delete parts of it, write a novel about it, translate it to 
some other language, and most importantly, distribute it. What else 
could you ask for? 8)

Felix
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> > There are all sorts of things you're not allowed to do with GPL source.
> > :-)
>
> I can copy it, compile it, run it, modify it, extend it, combine it with
> other code, delete parts of it, write a novel about it, translate it to
> some other language, and most importantly, distribute it. What else could
> you ask for? 8)

Me, generally nothing, but there are some important distinctions you've left
out of your list, ie. "combine it with other code" ... "distribute it". But
can you? :-)

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
   "I think hot Chinese girls who kick ass are the wave of the future, as
  far as films go." - Cody Russell
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Felix Sheldon]

Jeff Waugh wrote:

 

There are all sorts of things you're not allowed to do with GPL source.
:-)
 

I can copy it, compile it, run it, modify it, extend it, combine it with
other code, delete parts of it, write a novel about it, translate it to
some other language, and most importantly, distribute it. What else could
you ask for? 8)
   

Me, generally nothing, but there are some important distinctions you've left
out of your list, ie. "combine it with other code" ... "distribute it". But
can you? :-)
 


"combine it with other code"
Sure! Even the stolen Win2k source if I had it!
"distribute it"
Of course! I am talking about GPL code here.
> "combine it with other code" + "distribute it"
Nothing in the GPL rules it out. Maybe the license on the other code 
says something about it, but the GPL doesn't.


Felix

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 16:53, Felix Sheldon wrote:

> 
>  > "combine it with other code" + "distribute it"
> 
> Nothing in the GPL rules it out. Maybe the license on the other code 
> says something about it, but the GPL doesn't.

Actually, the GPL 'no other constraints may be imposed' is the reason
one often cannot combine & ship. I.e. one cannot ship vanilla GPL code
linked with openssl.

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Robert Collins]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 16:00, Felix Sheldon wrote:
> >
> There are many ways to use code, at runtime, linking, directly copying 
> in full or just taking bits of it. I think the Free software licenses 
> are not so much about what you can and can't do, just that you must 
> *always* provide source to anyone else who will 'use' (by normal 
> execution) a work incorporating it.

Erm, thats not the definition of the GPL or LGPL. The GPL's key thing is
that you must always make the the source *available should it be
wanted*. (This is quite different).

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Felix Sheldon]

Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 16:53, Felix Sheldon wrote:
 

> "combine it with other code" + "distribute it"
Nothing in the GPL rules it out. Maybe the license on the other code 
says something about it, but the GPL doesn't.
   

Actually, the GPL 'no other constraints may be imposed' is the reason
one often cannot combine & ship. I.e. one cannot ship vanilla GPL code
linked with openssl.
 

The author of openssl could do it if he/she/they wanted to, so it's not 
entirely impossible. :)

Felix
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Felix Sheldon]

Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 16:00, Felix Sheldon wrote:
 

There are many ways to use code, at runtime, linking, directly copying 
in full or just taking bits of it. I think the Free software licenses 
are not so much about what you can and can't do, just that you must 
*always* provide source to anyone else who will 'use' (by normal 
execution) a work incorporating it.
   

Erm, thats not the definition of the GPL or LGPL. The GPL's key thing is
that you must always make the the source *available should it be
wanted*. (This is quite different).
 

True, but I meant the '*always*' to be in relation to whether you have 
done this or that with the code. If doing something with the code means 
you cannot provide the source, then you cannot distribute the GPL code. 
It's not the GPL stopping you, it's your inability to provide the source.

Whether they want it or not you still have to provide (make available) 
the source.

Felix
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 13:18, Mary Gardiner wrote:

>  - for larger projects: LGPL or GPL, because I tend to be interested in
>the health of the project more than the ability of people to use the
>code for whatever purpose they like (distributing the code is healthy
>for the project, distributing changes is healthy, but "making a
>closed source fork" isn't because it won't help the project grow).

This is the crux of the argument isn't it.  Whether we ensure the
continued growth of FOSS.

Is the use of FOSS code in applications that are closed a huge evil or
do we want to propagate the use of FOSS code.  If we have another
programmer using the code and (hopefully) contributing bug fixes to a
library then isn't this better for all.  It is creating a standard.

The other approach is the GPL approach that says that in order to
strengthen GPL you must create GPL libraries and place a burden on the
commercial programmer to choose between GPL or rewriting the
functionality.  The programmer must relearn a proprietary solution if
they can find one because of the license or rewrite the library.  What
will happen to their next program?  Will they contribute that code back?
Unlikely and not useful if they do.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

PS: Jeff  & Rob, your words are noted and very correct.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Brad Kowalczyk]

Ken Foskey wrote:
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 13:18, Mary Gardiner wrote:
 

- for larger projects: LGPL or GPL, because I tend to be interested in
  the health of the project more than the ability of people to use the
  code for whatever purpose they like (distributing the code is healthy
  for the project, distributing changes is healthy, but "making a
  closed source fork" isn't because it won't help the project grow).
   

This is the crux of the argument isn't it.  Whether we ensure the
continued growth of FOSS.
Is the use of FOSS code in applications that are closed a huge evil or
do we want to propagate the use of FOSS code.  If we have another
programmer using the code and (hopefully) contributing bug fixes to a
library then isn't this better for all.  It is creating a standard.
The other approach is the GPL approach that says that in order to
strengthen GPL you must create GPL libraries and place a burden on the
commercial programmer to choose between GPL or rewriting the
functionality.  The programmer must relearn a proprietary solution if
they can find one because of the license or rewrite the library.  What
will happen to their next program?  Will they contribute that code back?
Unlikely and not useful if they do.
 

As a CompSci student and wannabe developer I must admit I'm a bit 
baffled and running scared with all the legal hoops involved in software 
development.

Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under say the 
GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features and functionality 
and wish to make a $ with it can I then release it under a 
>closed source license even though it is heavily 
based on GPL'd code?
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004, Brad Kowalczyk wrote:
> Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under say
> the GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features and
> functionality and wish to make a $ with it can I then release it under
> a  >closed source license even though it is heavily
> based on GPL'd code?

Licences and copyright law assign monopoly control of copying and
derived works to the copyright holder. You can licence and re-licence
your own copyright works however many times you like.

It is only when dealing with copyright held (in part or full) by others
that you are bound by the terms of their licence.

-Mary

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004, Ken Foskey wrote:
> Is the use of FOSS code in applications that are closed a huge evil or
> do we want to propagate the use of FOSS code.

This is one of those trick questions isn't it? If I answer "the use of
FOSS code in applications that are closed a huge evil" then I'm saying I
don't "want to propagate the use of FOSS code" right?

I'm still not willing to deal in such loaded terms. There are several
other alternatives in any case:

 - wanting to increase the amount of FOSS code in the world (not
   unrelated to *use* of code, but not exactly the same)
 - wanting to increase the visibility of FOSS code in the world
 - wanting to strengthen FOSS *projects*
 - wanting to make software available to people in the third world

etc etc. Various licences and community structures do these in various
ways.

Besides, I don't think it's monolithic. In some cases the use of FOSS
code in closed applications may be a bad thing for various people
(closed source program outcompetes original open source program,
programmer misses out on compensation because closed source developers
did not feel the need to buy a second licence, open source program
misses out on patches because closed source project didn't contribute
them back) and other times a good thing (closed source project increases
visibility of open source library, closed source project contributes to
open source library...)

At this stage, copyright holder makes the call. *All* open source
licences give away rights that are restricted by default.

> The other approach is the GPL approach that says that in order to
> strengthen GPL you must create GPL libraries and place a burden on the
> commercial programmer to choose between GPL or rewriting the
> functionality.

On the other hand, it is a guarentee to the user that "anyone who makes
a newer bigger better version of this using my hard work will also GPL
it! And so will people who make a bigger better version of something
else entirely, but use my code!"

I'm not that strongly pro-GPL, but I think it has positives as well as
negatives.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under say the
> GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features and functionality
> and wish to make a $ with it can I then release it under a
> >closed source license even though it is heavily based
> on GPL'd code?

Because you hold the copyright, yes.

Here's an example:

Ximian wrote the Evolution groupware suite, so hold the copyright. They
require copyright attribution from contributors so that they continue to
hold copyright over the complete work. That allowed them to ship Evolution
with the Exchange connector (which until a few weeks ago, was closed).

If their contributors had not assigned copyright, Ximian would not be able
to ship a proprietary module along with their contributor's code. Quite a
few projects work in a similar fashion (FSF/GNU-backed projects, Twisted,
etc).

If you hold the copyright, you can do whatever the hell you want. When you
accept contributions under the GPL, you no longer hold complete copyright;
your project becomes a 'collaborative work' (I don't think collaborative is
the right legal word though).

Fun stuff. ;-)

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
"Orphaned farm-boy hero helps save world against bad-guys, begins a
   journey of self-discovery, and makes interesting friends. Passable." -
Andrew Bennetts on Star Wars
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 18:57, Brad Kowalczyk wrote:

> Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under say the 
> GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features and functionality 
> and wish to make a $ with it can I then release it under a 
> >closed source license even though it is heavily 
> based on GPL'd code?

Any code the YOU wrote then yes, you can use and reuse this code as you
wish as Mary says.  If you only accept patches that assign copyright to
you personally and then to GPL then you are still fine.

Copyright, trade secret, & patents leave us all confused.  Do not think
you are alone :-)

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mike MacCana]

On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 13:06, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > For the record. I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source license.
> 
> Don't go down this road. "Open Source" and "Free Software" have definitions.

Aye. The Open Source Definition is at www.opensource.org.

You will note that shareware applications, and things you can legally
obtain source code for (like QMail, Pine, and Windows) are not Open
Source.

Mike

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[David Guest]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Waugh wrote:
| 
|
|> Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under
|> say the GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features
|> and functionality and wish to make a $ with it can I then release
|> it under a >closed source license even though
|> it is heavily based on GPL'd code?
|
|
| Because you hold the copyright, yes.
|
| Here's an example:
|
| Ximian wrote the Evolution groupware suite, so hold the copyright.
| They require copyright attribution from contributors so that they
| continue to hold copyright over the complete work. That allowed
| them to ship Evolution with the Exchange connector (which until a
| few weeks ago, was closed).
|
| If their contributors had not assigned copyright, Ximian would not
| be able to ship a proprietary module along with their contributor's
| code. Quite a few projects work in a similar fashion
| (FSF/GNU-backed projects, Twisted, etc).
Jeff
A few questions if I may.
Are there any projects where subsequent developers have also dual
licensed their contributions under the GPL and a closed source
license? Essentially they would trying to do the same as Ximian or
MySQL, viz. have an income stream from commercial extension and
application while making their code freely available under the GPL.
Alternatively are their commercial contracts for assigning copyright
under dual licensing? (e.g. I get one dollar for every seat where this
application is used under a commercial license.) Or is this too messy
to handle in practice?
David
- --
PGP public key 0x24606D9C at pgp.mit.edu
56D7 3608 6D73 0E11 064E  79C8 AC8E 6CAE 2460 6D9C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAwlLirI5sriRgbZwRAhJjAJ4/CUMffwHZQp62DVUfI0y0HTQlfgCfTCEB
7GfkGxCUi4SIsRcP8m2lzPw=
=/e2T
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, David Guest wrote:
> Alternatively are their commercial contracts for assigning copyright
> under dual licensing? (e.g. I get one dollar for every seat where this
> application is used under a commercial license.) Or is this too messy
> to handle in practice?

I don't think it makes sense to "assign ... copyright under dual
licensing."

Assigning copyright to me gives me the right to control copying of the
work (ie to licence it however I like).  On the other hand, licencing it
to me authorises me to use it (and perhaps copy it) in particular ways.

Either can be handed over as part of contractual agreements so you may
get an agreed return for either. In fact, in the academic world it is
common practice when you publish a paper to give the publisher copyright
in return for a licence for noncommercial distribution of your paper[1].

But you don't assign copyright under particular licences. Either you
give them copyright, assigning them complete control over the right to
copy your work, or you give them a licence, assigning them a specified,
limited amount of control over the right to copy your work.

So, assuming you're talking about dual licencing, not copyright
assignment, wouldn't this be pretty much the same as the distribution
model the game industry uses: here have a licence to distribute my game,
give me $X for every sale? In this case there would be two licences
specified in the contract.

But I don't know of any commerical FOSS projects that have this kind of
deal with outside contributors.

-Mary

[1] Not all academic presses are this nice, some will require copyright
assignment and will not licence your work back to you at all. You can
buy a copy like everyone else. Why do people agree to such terms?
Because the publication process is a professional reputation game, and
if you don't publish enough, you may not keep your job.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Del]

It's horses for courses, and sometimes none of the
open source licenses are exactly what you're looking
for.
Case in point.  I wrote an app some years ago.  Never
mind what it does, but it has a GUI.  Some people
ported it to Windows.  Some people ported it to a Mac.
I don't own a Windows box and I will probably never
own a Mac.  I keep getting a lot of support e-mails
for it saying "I run this on a Mac and push the X button
and Y happens can you tell me what's going wrong".  I
have no idea, it doesn't do that on Unix.
So I ended up having to hand-craft an open source license
by hacking about with bits of the BSD license but sort
of in reverse so I could say something like "you can freely
copy this app and give it away.  You can make modified versions
of it and give those away too, but if you do you must remove
my name and contact details from every file in that modified
version".  I couldn't find any existing open source license
that did that (at the time, I believe there are some that
have appeared since), so I had to write my own.
Other apps I've written have been released under the
GPL, BSD, LGPL, or as public domain, whatever seemed like
it suited it best at the time.
www.opensource.org is a good place to start.
--
Del
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 09:40, Mary Gardiner wrote:

> I don't think it makes sense to "assign ... copyright under dual
> licensing."

You as author can assign copyright "for use" to multiple parties.  I
have assigned copyright to Star Office and also OpenOffice.org when I
signed a long time ago.

David,

GPL is very specific, you cannot create a license that says that you
cannot use it in a commercial instance.  You can say that you must use
it in GPL software only.  This means that it cannot go closed ever
again.  This is the normal way for vendors to "control" the release of
software.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 10:56:00AM +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 09:40, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> > I don't think it makes sense to "assign ... copyright under dual
> > licensing."
> 
> You as author can assign copyright "for use" to multiple parties.  I

That's a permissive licence grant to each of those parties.  It's not
assignment of copyright over the work.  If you had actually assigned
copyright to one of those parties, you would have not had the right to
"assign" it to any other parties subsequent (absent a licence grant to do so
from the now-copyright holder of the work).

>From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
specific creative work.  When two or more entities both claim copyright
over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different parts of the
work.  Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always possible, but that's
not an issue in the case under discussion.

- Matt

-- 
"We are peaking sexually when they are peaking.  And two peaks makes a hell
of a good mount."
-- SMH
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Ken Foskey wrote:
> GPL is very specific, you cannot create a license that says that you
> cannot use it in a commercial instance.

More specifically, the GPL is itself copyright *and not modifiable*. At
the top it reads:

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

In other words, you cannot add and subtract clauses from the GPL to make
your own custom GPL. (Nor can you do this and call it something else:
calling it "Mary's Super Special Licence" doesn't stop it being a
copyright violation.)

If you want to create a GPL-like licence with a "you cannot use this
product commercially" clause, then you cannot do this by modifying the
GPL. Instead you should either look for another licence or draw one up
yourself (or better, get an IP lawyer to do it).

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
> specific creative work.  When two or more entities both claim
> copyright over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different
> parts of the work.  Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always
> possible, but that's not an issue in the case under discussion.

Many many FOSS projects with commericial partners are pioneering "Joint
Copyright Agreements", see for example:

http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/jca.html

Many open source projects, including the Free Software Foundation,
Red Hat and OpenOffice.org require that contributors assign their
copyright when they contribute code. Sun, the NetBeans project
sponsor, has come up with an innovative Joint Copyright Assignment
("JCA") that allows contributors to retain their own copyright while
sharing a joint copyright interest in the contributed code. This way
contributors retain all the rights granted by copyright law while
sharing those rights with the open source project sponsor so that
the code is protected by both the Sun Public License ("SPL") and
copyright law.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:17AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 
> From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
> specific creative work.  When two or more entities both claim copyright
> over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different parts of the
> work.  Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always possible, but that's
> not an issue in the case under discussion.

This isn't true -- copyright law allows for joint ownership of copyright for
a work, i.e. both owners have full rights to copy the work under any licence
conditions they wish, independently of each other.

OpenOffice.org appears to exactly this arrangement for its contributions:
see the FAQ entries about their Joint Copyright Assignment at
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#jca1

-Andrew.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:27:46AM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
> > specific creative work.  When two or more entities both claim
> > copyright over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different
> > parts of the work.  Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always
> > possible, but that's not an issue in the case under discussion.
> 
> Many many FOSS projects with commericial partners are pioneering "Joint
> Copyright Agreements", see for example:
> 
> http://www.netbeans.org/about/legal/jca.html

Of more interest is the meat of the agreement itself, which mentions "Joint
Ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory right associated with
the copyrights [...]", and then later states "Contributor retains the right
to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes".  Smells like you're
handing Sun the copyright, and they're giving you back an unlimited
(presumably, but not explicitly, transferrable) "anything goes" licence.  In
the FAQ they do mention getting your name put into the copyright credits for
the work your contribution is made to, but the FAQ says that's "not
practical".

I'd be worried about signing over my copyrights to any commercial entity
without a much clearer statement of what, exactly, I was signing over and
what I retained.

The problem with "Joint Ownership" of a copyrightable work is the issue of
standing to contest.  Who has the right to bring suit for copyright
violation?  If I have "joint ownership" of a work, can either of the
"owners" sue a violator?  Does it take agreement of both owners?  Can both
"owners" bring suit separately, so that the violator has to fight two suits
for the one infringement?

Strength in suit is one of the reasons some projects require copyright
assignment, but having "joint ownership" erodes all of that.  You'll spend
half your time arguing about issues of standing.

- Matt

-- 
All I care about [a linux distro] is it detect my hardware (non-Debian
strengths), and teach me to fish instead of just giving me a smelly old fish
(most people 'xcept Debian), and I guess don't just give me a fish biology
textbook (gentoo).  -- Tom (in d-devel)
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:29:42AM +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:08:17AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > 
> > From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
> > specific creative work.  When two or more entities both claim copyright
> > over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different parts of the
> > work.  Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always possible, but that's
> > not an issue in the case under discussion.
> 
> This isn't true -- copyright law allows for joint ownership of copyright for
> a work, i.e. both owners have full rights to copy the work under any licence
> conditions they wish, independently of each other.

Who has standing in the event of infringement?  See my other recent missive
on the topic for more details of the issues involved.

> OpenOffice.org appears to exactly this arrangement for its contributions:
> see the FAQ entries about their Joint Copyright Assignment at
> http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#jca1

Looks like the NetBeans FAQ, with more meat.  In particular, I'd like to
know their basis for it not being "legally necessary" to show copyright
interest in a work.

While it's true that all creative works automatically have copyright held by
the author upon creation, this is a different issue.  If I rip off something
that has "(C) Sun Microsystems" on it, and get a letter from J. Random
Hacker's landshark requesting cease and desist, I'm going to laugh at it
(or, possibly, get my landshark to write a laughing letter back), unless
there is a lot more evidence to it than that.  Good revision control log
messages will help there, but I wouldn't want to rely on that if I was
trying to sue someone for wilful infringement.

- Matt
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:23:41AM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Ken Foskey wrote:
> > GPL is very specific, you cannot create a license that says that you
> > cannot use it in a commercial instance.
> 
> More specifically, the GPL is itself copyright *and not modifiable*. At
> the top it reads:
> 
>  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
>  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
> 
> In other words, you cannot add and subtract clauses from the GPL to make
> your own custom GPL. (Nor can you do this and call it something else:
> calling it "Mary's Super Special Licence" doesn't stop it being a
> copyright violation.)

But see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL.

- Matt
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Harald Richard Ashburner]

Ken Foskey said:

>You as author can assign copyright "for use" to multiple parties.  I
>have assigned copyright to Star Office and also OpenOffice.org when I
>signed a long time ago.

Hi Ken,
This raises an interesting question. Now as a disclaimer I promise you
that I am interested in your thoughts and not trolling :)

When you assigned copyright to Star Office & OOo does this mean that
some meanie might be able to get control of this successful product, close
the source and change the copyright, freezing you out of the picture
alltogether and causing much wailing accross the FLOSS community?

Being involved in OOo, do you have any thoughts about contributing to a
project where you don't own your copyright? Are there assurances, is
there trust or am I missing the point altogether? 

-- 
Kind regards,
Hal Ashburner
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> When you assigned copyright to Star Office & OOo does this mean that some
> meanie might be able to get control of this successful product, close the
> source and change the copyright, freezing you out of the picture
> alltogether and causing much wailing accross the FLOSS community?

That'd be StarOffice. :-) Although, without so much of the freezing and
wailing thus far.

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
 "It's my head, Schwartz - it's my head!" - John Malkovich
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 15:01, Harald Richard Ashburner wrote:

> When you assigned copyright to Star Office & OOo does this mean that
> some meanie might be able to get control of this successful product, close
> the source and change the copyright, freezing you out of the picture
> altogether and causing much wailing across the FLOSS community?
> 
> Being involved in OOo, do you have any thoughts about contributing to a
> project where you don't own your copyright? Are there assurances, is
> there trust or am I missing the point altogether? 

You raised an interesting point.

The license of OpenOffice.org is LGPL so it is very open to enable
people to modify the code and take copies of it.  It cannot be closed
ever again.

The license of Star Office is closed.  It is almost 100% the same as
OpenOffice.org however.  The owner (currently Sun) can take this source
base and hide it again from the world, this includes my code.

Do I care.  No, not really, I believe that the success of StarOffice is
directly a success in OpenOffice.org.  I and many Linux and Windows
users get the benefit of the huge source provided by StarOffice for
nothing and that cannot be taken away.  Also to be honest the vast
majority of code is designed and built in a single Office in Hamburg
Germany and will continue to be done at Star Office Hamburg for a
considerable time to come.

I got involved as a direct result of Jeff W hassling me to become
involved.  Basically he made me look at what I was interested in and
simply pick one. I picked OOo because it had only just been opened and
Word Processing always interested me. You may choose something different
incorporating you level of care over FOSS licensing, if you hate the
possibility of a company owning your work that you gave for free don't
work on those projects, pick something else.  If like me you simply want
the world to be a better place then pick something you think will make
it a better place.  Word Processing for the masses, hell yeah.  Computer
Bank to support Bush schools and community groups I am there. (All right
I will get there soon, promise :-) )

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[David Guest]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mary Gardiner wrote:
| On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, David Guest wrote:
|
|> Alternatively are their commercial contracts for assigning
|> copyright under dual licensing? (e.g. I get one dollar for every
|> seat where this application is used under a commercial license.)
|> Or is this too messy to handle in practice?
|
|
| I don't think it makes sense to "assign ... copyright under dual
| licensing."
|
| Assigning copyright to me gives me the right to control copying of
| the work (ie to licence it however I like).  On the other hand,
| licencing it to me authorises me to use it (and perhaps copy it) in
| particular ways.
|
| Either can be handed over as part of contractual agreements so you
| may get an agreed return for either.
snip
| But I don't know of any commerical FOSS projects that have this
| kind of deal with outside contributors.
Thanks Mary. I was just wondering if people like Ken might get an
income from the closed license stream in much the same way as Sun gets
from Star Office.
Not yet sounds like the answer and it may never be practicable.
David
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFAwv2krI5sriRgbZwRAg5YAJjWm8+WptQnp5zs87zbi1ISyn0WAJwIhXjc
KmldO4HRAy8XfP8B7Clv0A==
=93p/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Jeff Waugh]

> Thanks Mary. I was just wondering if people like Ken might get an income
> from the closed license stream in much the same way as Sun gets from Star
> Office.
> 
> Not yet sounds like the answer and it may never be practicable.

Whoa there, heaps of people do. Ask Erik! :-)

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
   "I came for the quality, but I stayed for the freedom." - Sean Neakums
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 12:36:10PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:29:42AM +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> > 
> > This isn't true -- copyright law allows for joint ownership of copyright for
> > a work, i.e. both owners have full rights to copy the work under any licence
> > conditions they wish, independently of each other.
> 
> Who has standing in the event of infringement?  See my other recent missive
> on the topic for more details of the issues involved.

Here's another example of joint ownership -- Zope Corporation's Contributor
Agreement:
http://dev.zope.org/DevHome/CVS/Contributor.pdf (FAQ at
http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorFAQ).

In particular, this text makes the answer to your question clear, I think:
"You and Zope Corporation each agree that the other shall be free to
exercise any and all exclusive rights in and to the Contribution, without
accounting to one another ..."

I think the Zope Corporation Contributor Agreement is a pretty clear
demonstration of how joint ownership of copyright can work.

I think the OpenOffice JCA says the same thing (albeit less clearly) when it
says: 
"Contributor hereby assigns to Sun joint ownership in all worldwide common
law and statutory rights associated with copyrights ... Contributor retains
the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes."

The OpenOffice JCA does seem a bit vague to my non-lawyer eyes -- I'm not
sure how broad the "Contributor's own purposes" can be interpreted to be,
but given that the JCA explicitly leaves the Contributor with joint
ownership, presumably this extends to being able to fully exercise the
rights you already had prior to making the contribution, and being able to
do so independently of Sun.

Personally, I'd be comfortable with signing either agreement to make
contributions (and in fact I have signed the Zope Corp agreement), and I'd
be comfortable with exercising my rights on any work I contributed, if I
wanted to.

-Andrew.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> While it's true that all creative works automatically have copyright
> held by the author upon creation, this is a different issue.  If I rip
> off something that has "(C) Sun Microsystems" on it, and get a letter
> from J. Random Hacker's landshark requesting cease and desist, I'm
> going to laugh at it (or, possibly, get my landshark to write a
> laughing letter back), unless there is a lot more evidence to it than
> that.

Yeah, but whether joint copyight assignment is a sensible and effective
way to control copying is an entirely different question from whether
it's legal in the first place.

Besides, I'm not sure that "they'll laugh at my first letter!" is a good
reason not to do something. People laugh at all kinds of things. Who
cares if they laugh? What matters is whether the assignment stands up in
court, and that will be pretty much independent of their response to the
initial letter. Anyone so easily frightened into observing the terms of
your copyright was never such a big problem in the first place. The
serious problems are going to be a problem for you and Sun Microsystems
regardless of the copyright text.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 21:19, David Guest wrote:

> Thanks Mary. I was just wondering if people like Ken might get an
> income from the closed license stream in much the same way as Sun gets
> from Star Office.

My expectation is never from my code in FOSS to think otherwise is
probably foolish.  We all have the dream of a killer application that
will change the world and make us comfortable.  I realise that I am an
backup type, I will never change the world but I hope to help someone
who will :-)

Regarding money: Indirectly I think that i may get a contract with a
FOSS company or as a direct result of FOSS people I know for closed
source jobs.  I fully expect the FOSS job to come with a pay cut, an
unfortunate reality.  I also know that UTS value my FOSS involvement  (I
teach 1 night per week).

In short I believe that my ability to find the next job has improved
100% as a direct involvement in Linux and Open Source. I will never make
my fortune doing though.

As a side benefit I get to read some really cool documents and know
"stuff" that I would never have learned at work.  I then get questions
on odd ball stuff and I just know the answer.  It really is a great way
to expand your abilities and find out things.  When you work for your
employer you struggle through to a solution under time pressure for
results.

At home for FOSS you can study the right way to do 5 lines of code for
hours.  You can take a journey into the area of building stable ABI code
and understand the issues. You would never learn this through work. 
They love you when you explain these things to them when they need it
though :-)

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Benno]

On Sun Jun 06, 2004 at 21:44:21 +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 12:36:10PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 11:29:42AM +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>> > 
>> > This isn't true -- copyright law allows for joint ownership of copyright for
>> > a work, i.e. both owners have full rights to copy the work under any licence
>> > conditions they wish, independently of each other.
>> 
>> Who has standing in the event of infringement?  See my other recent missive
>> on the topic for more details of the issues involved.
>
>Here's another example of joint ownership -- Zope Corporation's Contributor
>Agreement:
>http://dev.zope.org/DevHome/CVS/Contributor.pdf (FAQ at
>http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorFAQ).
>

I was under the impression that in Australian copyright law there could only
be one copyright owner. (That could be either a person or a comany).

www.copyright.org.au seems to have lots of information about this.

They also have really good fact sheets. One of the ones I read implied
that joint copyright was not valid in anyway. In such a case copyright is
held by the initial author.

I may be wrong, but check out the website, and remember that Australian
copyright is not (yet[1]) identical to American copyright law.

Benno

[1] Until the FTA goes through...
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:45:37AM +1000, Benno wrote:
> On Sun Jun 06, 2004 at 21:44:21 +1000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> >
> >Here's another example of joint ownership -- Zope Corporation's Contributor
> >Agreement:
> >http://dev.zope.org/DevHome/CVS/Contributor.pdf (FAQ at
> >http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorFAQ).
> >
> 
> I was under the impression that in Australian copyright law there could only
> be one copyright owner. (That could be either a person or a comany).
> 
> www.copyright.org.au seems to have lots of information about this.
> 
> They also have really good fact sheets. One of the ones I read implied
> that joint copyright was not valid in anyway. In such a case copyright is
> held by the initial author.

Their fact sheet titled "Ownership of Copyright" says on page 5:

"Can copyright be jointly owned?

Yes -- this can happen in two ways:

* there may be joint authors of a work -- that is, two or more authors have
  made indistinguishable contributions to the creation of the work;
* you can also agree that copyright will be jointly owned, whether or not
  the contributions are indistinguishable.  For example, some bands decide
  that everyone in the band will jointly own copyright in all music and
  lyrics created by band members, even though all the band members may not
  be joint authors of each piece of music and lyrics.
"

So clearly, joint ownership of copyright is recognised in Australian law.

-Andrew.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Glen Turner]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 10:15, Benno wrote:

> I was under the impression that in Australian copyright law there could only
> be one copyright owner. (That could be either a person or a comany).

There can be joint ownership. This often happens in bands (ie, all
members agree to be copyright holders, whomever actually authored the
lyrics, music and arrangement). That way non-author band members aren't
ripped off.

More common with computer programs is the "rights assignment". You still
own the copyright, but you non-exclusively assign all rights to another
party. The FSF rights assignment is a good example.

There is no requirement in Australian copyright law that the copyright
holder be a full legal entity -- a child or an unincorporated joint
venture can hold copyright. (Conversely, gov't depts don't hold
copyright, the state does).

> They also have really good fact sheets. One of the ones I read implied
> that joint copyright was not valid in anyway.

Hmmm.  Got a reference, I looked at the most obvious one, "G58 Ownership
of Copyright", and with some minor quibbles it seems to be right.

Regards,
Glen


-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Benno]

On Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:33:49 +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 10:15, Benno wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that in Australian copyright law there could only
>> be one copyright owner. (That could be either a person or a comany).
>
>There can be joint ownership. This often happens in bands (ie, all
>members agree to be copyright holders, whomever actually authored the
>lyrics, music and arrangement). That way non-author band members aren't
>ripped off.
>
>More common with computer programs is the "rights assignment". You still
>own the copyright, but you non-exclusively assign all rights to another
>party. The FSF rights assignment is a good example.

I was under the impression that rights assignment, especially the
FSF one is a transfer of copyright. I.e: FSF now owns copyright, and you
no longer own copyright.

>There is no requirement in Australian copyright law that the copyright
>holder be a full legal entity -- a child or an unincorporated joint
>venture can hold copyright. (Conversely, gov't depts don't hold
>copyright, the state does).

According to the G10 fact sheet you do. Which is why you can't put
 business name in the copyright header. (Although company is fine.)

And a child is a full legal entity, at least in terms of being able to
legally own goods.

>> They also have really good fact sheets. One of the ones I read implied
>> that joint copyright was not valid in anyway.
>
>Hmmm.  Got a reference, I looked at the most obvious one, "G58 Ownership
>of Copyright", and with some minor quibbles it seems to be right.

G10 an introduction to the copyright system, but yes reading G58 it does
explicitly state there is such a thing as joint ownership, so I stand 
corrected ;)

Benno
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Harald Richard Ashburner]

On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 16:02, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 15:01, Harald Richard Ashburner wrote:
> 
> > When you assigned copyright to Star Office & OOo does this mean that
> > some meanie might be able to get control of this successful product, close
> > the source and change the copyright, freezing you out of the picture
> > altogether and causing much wailing across the FLOSS community?
> > 
> > Being involved in OOo, do you have any thoughts about contributing to a
> > project where you don't own your copyright? Are there assurances, is
> > there trust or am I missing the point altogether? 
> 
> You raised an interesting point.
> 
> The license of OpenOffice.org is LGPL so it is very open to enable
> people to modify the code and take copies of it.  It cannot be closed
> ever again.

Cool! This sounds like just the sort of assurance that would put a
developer at their ease. So how does it work? Who owns the OOo
copyright? Is there an OOo foundation? Is it the FSF? Is the owner of
that copyright above being 'infiltrated' (for want of a better word. By
way of comparison to disperate develepers each having to agree to a
change of copyright terms.)

On the Sun side do I interepret incorrectly or is ther the 'possibility'
of say Sun, or someone to whom Sun might sell their copyright in the
future, incorporating a bunch of stuff into StarOffice (with no space in
the title, thanks Jeff :) on top of your code, and not release it to
OOo? Is that right? Is that any sort of concern? Or do you consider this
risk negligible or completely worth running due to the goodness of the
OOo package as opposed to say abiword?

Thanks again for your thoughts.
Kind regards, Hal

P.S. As I say I'm fairly new at thinking about this sort of stuff so if
I'm on completely the wrong track then that is because I'm a goose
rather than trying to stir up trouble with OOo :) As a disclaimer I'm
involved in the extreme perifery of Gnumeric which is a thing of beauty
and a joy forever and I love it, but I also love OOo. (I use oowriter
myself, so a big THANKS! BTW.) The quest is understanding rather than
antagonism...

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:13:13 +1000
Ken Foskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> "BSD is the only true Open Source license."  This is an interesting
> quote from an idiot.  But I would really like to here other opinions on
> this.

The BSD license lets people (and corps like microsoft) use your code
for their own benefit, without give anything back to the community or
individual who created the sofwtare.

Ken Brown (the Alexis de Tourqville idiot) LOVES the BSD license
which I'm sure is exactly what microsoft has told him to say.

> I know there are thousands of licenses I would like to classify them:
> 
> a) BSD like - use how you want includes Public Domain.

I don't like it for the stuff I write, but it is still appropriate for
some things. For instance, its unlikely Ogg/Vorbis would have had as
big a takeup on portable players if it was LGPL or GPL.

> b) LGPL like - for libraries.

I have released a library under the LGPL. Its a good license.

> c) GPL like - can never be used in conjunction with closed programs.

True. However, I have a library under the GPL which contains only
my code. Its is also available under a commercial use license for
use with closed source. I have so far had three takers on this 
with almost no publicity. I'm not getting rich this way, but it more
than pays for bandwidth and the ocassional piece of cheap hardware.

> For the record.  I believe that LGPL is the only true Open Source
> license.

Do you also believe in Santa Clause? The Easter Bunny? Tooth Fairy?

> Please play nice!

I try.

Erik
-- 
+---+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid)
+---+
A good debugger is no substitute for a good test suite.
-- 
-- 
+---+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid)
+---+
A good debugger is no substitute for a good test suite.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Ken Foskey]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 11:26, Harald Richard Ashburner wrote:

> On the Sun side do I interepret incorrectly or is ther the 'possibility'
> of say Sun, or someone to whom Sun might sell their copyright in the
> future, incorporating a bunch of stuff into StarOffice (with no space in
> the title, thanks Jeff :) on top of your code, and not release it to
> OOo? Is that right?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

>  Is that any sort of concern?

a) It is their work and we have the source base to simply re-implement
it, if we choose to.

b) Do you trust the other party?

c) Do you, as a person spending your time, care?  If this is not
acceptable then there are some really cool projects out there.  gnumeric
being one of them.

>  Or do you consider this
> risk negligible or completely worth running due to the goodness of the
> OOo package as opposed to say abiword?

Near zero.

I support OOo due to extreme cross platform.  OOo will open the door for
all FOSS by installing on Windows and simply working.

> As a disclaimer I'm
> involved in the extreme perifery of Gnumeric which is a thing of beauty
> and a joy forever and I love it, but I also love OOo. (I use oowriter
> myself, so a big THANKS! BTW.)

I use gnumeric because it is fast to open spreadsheets from scratch.

By the way I hope in the future to merge some underlying libraries for
ALL FOSS word processors/ spreadsheets / etc.  It is pointless each of
us writing and debugging separate versions of import for legacy
Microsoft for instance.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

PS:  I believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause because I would not
have Linux otherwise...  Ask Linus.

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Harald Richard Ashburner]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 20:19, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 11:26, Harald Richard Ashburner wrote:
> 
> > On the Sun side do I interepret incorrectly or is ther the 'possibility'
> > of say Sun, or someone to whom Sun might sell their copyright in the
> > future, incorporating a bunch of stuff into StarOffice (with no space in
> > the title, thanks Jeff :) on top of your code, and not release it to
> > OOo? Is that right?
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
> 
> >  Is that any sort of concern?
> 
> a) It is their work and we have the source base to simply re-implement
> it, if we choose to.
> 
> b) Do you trust the other party?
> 
> c) Do you, as a person spending your time, care?  If this is not
> acceptable then there are some really cool projects out there.  gnumeric
> being one of them.
> 
> >  Or do you consider this
> > risk negligible or completely worth running due to the goodness of the
> > OOo package as opposed to say abiword?
> 
> Near zero.
> 
> I support OOo due to extreme cross platform.  OOo will open the door for
> all FOSS by installing on Windows and simply working.
> 

All good then! OOo is wy cool!
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this (yep a risk exists, but you
assess it at near zero.) Not something I've ever had to consider, but
you have summed up the issues and their appropriate treatment in the
case of OOo very nicely. Also appoligies if my email seemed a bit
obtuse, I really do find all this licencing stuff fairly confusing. And
I seem to have acquired something of an "embrace & extend a standard
base paranoia" 
I can't imagine why... but paranoia is just that.


> By the way I hope in the future to merge some underlying libraries for
> ALL FOSS word processors/ spreadsheets / etc.  It is pointless each of
> us writing and debugging separate versions of import for legacy
> Microsoft for instance.

The irony is, the best way to get a spreadsheet from oocalc to gnumeric
or vice versa is via the XL97 format. H...
I know Jody Goldberg has looked at this extensively, it's apparently
non-trivial for technical reasons. From what I understand there is no
animoisity between the various teams.

Cheers,
Hal
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Glen Turner]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 10:47, Benno wrote:

> >More common with computer programs is the "rights assignment". You still
> >own the copyright, but you non-exclusively assign all rights to another
> >party. The FSF rights assignment is a good example.
> 
> I was under the impression that rights assignment, especially the
> FSF one is a transfer of copyright. I.e: FSF now owns copyright, and you
> no longer own copyright.

I checked and you're right. The greedy pigs :-) They do have a
disclaimer process (you move it to public domain and FSF pick it up from
there) but that assumes a formal "public domain" to start with
(something lacking in AU).

> And a child is a full legal entity, at least in terms of being able to
> legally own goods.

Let's not got there, the powers of guardians and children concerning
property are necessarily complex. I was making the point that the
entities recognised by the Copyright Act are wider than the entities
recognised by the corporations law; in particular, the unincorporated
joint venture gives validity to notices such as

  Copyright  Samba Core Team, 2004.

This is convenient as the UJV is a useful entity for free software
projects (as it makes various liabilities fall out well).

Best wishes,
Glen

-- 
Glen Turner Tel: (08) 8303 3936 or +61 8 8303 3936 
Network Engineer  Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australian Academic & Research Network   www.aarnet.edu.au

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Benno]

On Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 13:58:00 +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 10:47, Benno wrote:
>
>> >More common with computer programs is the "rights assignment". You sti=
>ll
>> >own the copyright, but you non-exclusively assign all rights to anothe=
>r
>> >party. The FSF rights assignment is a good example.
>>=20
>> I was under the impression that rights assignment, especially the
>> FSF one is a transfer of copyright. I.e: FSF now owns copyright, and yo=
>u
>> no longer own copyright.
>
>I checked and you're right. The greedy pigs :-) They do have a
>disclaimer process (you move it to public domain and FSF pick it up from
>there) but that assumes a formal "public domain" to start with
>(something lacking in AU).
>
>> And a child is a full legal entity, at least in terms of being able to
>> legally own goods.
>
>Let's not got there, the powers of guardians and children concerning
>property are necessarily complex. I was making the point that the
>entities recognised by the Copyright Act are wider than the entities
>recognised by the corporations law; in particular, the unincorporated
>joint venture gives validity to notices such as
>
>  Copyright =C2=A9 Samba Core Team, 2004.
>
>This is convenient as the UJV is a useful entity for free software
>projects (as it makes various liabilities fall out well).

Reading http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G010.pdf implies to me 
at least that only legal entities can own copyright, and implied that 
ownership of copyright worked in the same way ownership of other goods.

From the factsheet:

""" However, if someone trades under a business name, the correct name
to put in the copyright notice is not the business name but the names
of the relevant individual or individuals. The reason for this is that
a business name is not a legal entity, and does not own property; only
individuals and incorporated bodies such as companies can own property
(including copyright)."""

To me this implies:

1/ copyright *is* property
2/ only individuals and incorporated bodies can own property.

Of course this might be fully in line with what you are saying ;), I'm
not sure what you mean as "recognised by the corporations law".

Benno
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Off Topic? -> Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best

[Dean Hamstead]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
not sure if im correct, but i think this thread is more
ontopic in the slug-chat list, but im sure debating
licensing isnt ontopic for a linux discussion list.
anyone with higher authority want to clarrify?
not trying to stiffle debate but just trying to
classify it
Dean
David Guest wrote:
| Jeff Waugh wrote:
|
| | 
| |
| |> Just one small Q, lets say I develop an app and release it under
| |> say the GPL, if I then improve on this app adding new features
| |> and functionality and wish to make a $ with it can I then release
| |> it under a >closed source license even though
| |> it is heavily based on GPL'd code?
| |
| |
| | Because you hold the copyright, yes.
| |
| | Here's an example:
| |
| | Ximian wrote the Evolution groupware suite, so hold the copyright.
| | They require copyright attribution from contributors so that they
| | continue to hold copyright over the complete work. That allowed
| | them to ship Evolution with the Exchange connector (which until a
| | few weeks ago, was closed).
| |
| | If their contributors had not assigned copyright, Ximian would not
| | be able to ship a proprietary module along with their contributor's
| | code. Quite a few projects work in a similar fashion
| | (FSF/GNU-backed projects, Twisted, etc).
|
| Jeff
|
| A few questions if I may.
|
| Are there any projects where subsequent developers have also dual
| licensed their contributions under the GPL and a closed source
| license? Essentially they would trying to do the same as Ximian or
| MySQL, viz. have an income stream from commercial extension and
| application while making their code freely available under the GPL.
|
| Alternatively are their commercial contracts for assigning copyright
| under dual licensing? (e.g. I get one dollar for every seat where this
| application is used under a commercial license.) Or is this too messy
| to handle in practice?
|
| David
|
| --
| PGP public key 0x24606D9C at pgp.mit.edu
| 56D7 3608 6D73 0E11 064E  79C8 AC8E 6CAE 2460 6D9C
|
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAwpXqI1HDX08lY+ARAlkSAJ9WOS4Iz5s3CJVvufa9oU1orDb9QwCePcOq
uPw1N2HNm42FP6Z0cptTQG0=
=4qzT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Mary Gardiner]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2004, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Mary. I was just wondering if people like Ken might get an income
> > from the closed license stream in much the same way as Sun gets from Star
> > Office.
> > 
> > Not yet sounds like the answer and it may never be practicable.
> 
> Whoa there, heaps of people do. Ask Erik! :-)

So, I think the original question (in this subthread) was something like
this:

   Is there anyone contributing to a FOSS project for which they do NOT
   hold all the copyright who is making any money out of the following
   system: sell their copyright to someone else in return for royalties
   on any closed source licence sales? (Eg. $1 for every commerical
   licence sale.)

Here's David Guest's original phrasing:
> Alternatively are their commercial contracts for assigning copyright
> under dual licensing? (e.g. I get one dollar for every seat where this
> application is used under a commercial license.) Or is this too messy
> to handle in practice?

I'm only pointing this out because I'd be interested in the answer, and
Erik's last post suggests that he isn't actually an example: he's making
money precisely because he IS sole copyright holder and thus can sell
licences, not in exchange for his copyright. (Of course I may be
misjudging based on that single post.) It seems like copyright assigners
do so without financial reward in the FOSS world.

I'm aware, and I'm sure David is, that this is possible in principle,
but all the actual examples cited in this thread to date have been sole
copyright holders earning income from granting extra licences, not
people who've signed their copyright away in exchange for royalties from
such sales.

-Mary
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:39:28PM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> copyright holders earning income from granting extra licences, not
> people who've signed their copyright away in exchange for royalties from
> such sales.

The issue I see in this model is the problem of valuing contributions.  How
do I, as the mediator of this model, work out who gets what money?  Purely
by LoC has all the usual LoC-productivity problems[1].  $N/contribution
means someone who rewrote the whole app gets $N, someone who contributed 15
patches gets $N*15.  If it's on the judgement of the lead developer or
something, you *will* piss off people whose contribution you don't value as
highly as they do.

As someone who might be in a position to implement a system of this ilk in
the nearish future, I'm interested in discussion points people might like to
bring to the table.

- Matt

[1] LoC doesn't take into account the actual difficulty of writing the code,
and some people can be far more verbose than others.  There's also the
problem of what do you do when you throw out someone's contribution. 
Actually, that goes for all of the systems of value evaluation, and you have
to track when someone's contribution gets superceded or purged so they stop
getting paid.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Michael Chesterton]

Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> As someone who might be in a position to implement a system of this ilk in
> the nearish future, I'm interested in discussion points people might like to
> bring to the table.

Good luck. Do you considering that only code has value in your
system?

I think behind a successful FLOSS project is a strong community, from
the community, code is one of the contributions of value. Could a kick
arse idea have more value than the code that implements it? I think it
could. Plus there's support, bug reports, publicity, karma and warm
fuzzies :)

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Jeff Waugh]

> I think behind a successful FLOSS project is a strong community, from the
> community, code is one of the contributions of value. Could a kick arse
> idea have more value than the code that implements it? I think it could.
> Plus there's support, bug reports, publicity, karma and warm fuzzies :)

It takes *significantly* more effort to climb up the meritocracy rungs when
your contributions do not include code. See also:

  http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/pearls/2003/04/msg0.html

- Jeff

-- 
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norwayhttp://2004.guadec.org/
 
  "I rather think of Pat as our linguistic ornithologist here - 'Oh look,
 the brown noddy also nests in the mangrove!'" - John Fleck
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Ken Foskey]

On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 21:12, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> It takes *significantly* more effort to climb up the meritocracy rungs when
> your contributions do not include code. See also:
> 
>   http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/pearls/2003/04/msg0.html

Well worth a read and exactly matches my experience.

-- 
Thanks
KenF
OpenOffice.org developer

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:39:28 +1000
Mary Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm only pointing this out because I'd be interested in the answer, and
> Erik's last post suggests that he isn't actually an example: he's making
> money precisely because he IS sole copyright holder and thus can sell
> licences, not in exchange for his copyright. 

Thats correct. I've also never had the problem of having people
contribute to this project. When and if I ever did, I would be
asking for copyright assignment or moving the project to LGPL.

Erik
-- 
+---+
  Erik de Castro Lopo  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid)
+---+
A good debugger is no substitute for a good test suite.
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[David Guest]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:39:28PM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
|
|
|> copyright holders earning income from granting extra licences,
|> not people who've signed their copyright away in exchange for
|> royalties from such sales.
|>
|>
| The issue I see in this model is the problem of valuing
| contributions.  How do I, as the mediator of this model, work out
| who gets what money?  Purely by LoC has all the usual
| LoC-productivity problems[1].
|
|
snip
| As someone who might be in a position to implement a system of this
| ilk in the nearish future, I'm interested in discussion points
| people might like to bring to the table.
|
|
Thanks Matthew / Mary / Jeff
My interest in this arises from my recent election to the GPCG
(www.gpcg.org). This is a board that oversees a lump of government
money (?~A9 mil) for computing in medical practice. A bunch of us have
been agitating for the principle that government funded projects
should be open sourced rather than just given away to private
enterprise or buried in some government archive.
A few of the academics, bureaucrats and commercial medical industry
software developers have come to believe that open source might be a
good thing. However, in many ways they are having difficulty in
letting go of their proprietary software roots. A group of them have
set up the Health OpenWare Foundation (www.healthopenware.org.au) to
try to come to a solution to the sorts of problems we have been
discussing above. They are struggling.
The environment we are working in is thus quite different to the usual
open source project. There are few people with the cross domain
knowledge to drive these medical computing projects ("He who codes
wins") but it is plain to most, that the proprietary model has led
down a number of dead ends.
It would be nice to find a model that would open the source for
academics and interested medical practitioners to dabble in code space
(Jeff's level three participants) while acknowledging that most the
coding would need to be done by professional developers.
OOo thus offers a model that might be applicable in this area and like
others I would be interested in the options for outside developers to
interact on a commercial basis. The power of an open source
meritocracy may not be directly transferable to this situation but we
hope that we can at least preserve the principles of code reuse and
extensibility.
David
- --
PGP public key 0x24606D9C at pgp.mit.edu
56D7 3608 6D73 0E11 064E  79C8 AC8E 6CAE 2460 6D9C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAxtVvrI5sriRgbZwRAqSkAJ0d+Toc1jRpjJtx6Ql0USRkUlEFMACdHQ6E
9CYph9TUn01S8/FADn0VejI=
=41Zf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: Exchanging copyright for money (Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best)

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:16:31PM +1000, David Guest wrote:
> The environment we are working in is thus quite different to the usual
> open source project. There are few people with the cross domain
> knowledge to drive these medical computing projects ("He who codes
> wins") but it is plain to most, that the proprietary model has led
> down a number of dead ends.
> 
> It would be nice to find a model that would open the source for
> academics and interested medical practitioners to dabble in code space
> (Jeff's level three participants) while acknowledging that most the
> coding would need to be done by professional developers.

Pay the developers, but release the source afterwards.  This just requires
that your developers know that either (a) he who pays owns the copyright, so
that you can licence it openly, or (b) the developers keep the copyright,
but all work product under the contract must be licenced openly.

You might also be interested in the GNOME project's bounty system, where
various desired features have cash values attached to them, to be paid to
the first suitable implementation.  I'd actually be interested in Jeff's
thoughts on how well that has worked for GNOME, since he'd know quite a bit
about it, I'd imagine.  It doesn't stop you from needing a core team to do
some/most of the development and probably all of the planning, but I do
wonder if it could be a useful way to "share the love", as it were.

> OOo thus offers a model that might be applicable in this area and like
> others I would be interested in the options for outside developers to
> interact on a commercial basis. The power of an open source
> meritocracy may not be directly transferable to this situation but we
> hope that we can at least preserve the principles of code reuse and
> extensibility.

I think that the GNOME bounty scheme, could be one of the best ways of doing
this.  Entirely theoretical at this point, though.

- Matt
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html