[gdal-dev] GDAL license and copyright

[Aaron Boxer]

Hello,

I am trying to learn more about how open source projects manage copyright
of contributors.
I see that various GDAL files have different copyright assignees, although
they all use the MIT
license.

Is this difficult to manage? For example, if GDAL is packaged for a
distribution such as Fedora,
how do you manage the license for the package?  Also, if a new contributor
were to add new functionality in a new file, is it ok for them to assign
copyright to themselves when submitting to the trunk ?

Thanks very much,
Aaron
___
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL license and copyright

[Even Rouault]

Le lundi 18 janvier 2016 19:59:01, Aaron Boxer a écrit :
> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to learn more about how open source projects manage copyright
> of contributors.
> I see that various GDAL files have different copyright assignees, although
> they all use the MIT
> license.
> 
> Is this difficult to manage? 

Not until now. Copyright assignment to a single entity can be useful when 
dealing with potential future license changes, but given that X/MIT is one of 
the less restrictive license, it is unlikely to be needed to be changed.

> For example, if GDAL is packaged for a
> distribution such as Fedora,
> how do you manage the license for the package? 

I think distributions refer to the LICENSE.TXT file at the root of GDAL source 
tree. The global licensing implications can however by more complex if you 
link GDAL with third-party libraries that can be GPL, LGPL, proprietary, 
etc...

> Also, if a new contributor
> were to add new functionality in a new file, is it ok for them to assign
> copyright to themselves when submitting to the trunk ?

Yes.

> 
> Thanks very much,
> Aaron

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com
___
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL license and copyright

[Aaron Boxer]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Even Rouault 
wrote:

> Le lundi 18 janvier 2016 19:59:01, Aaron Boxer a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am trying to learn more about how open source projects manage copyright
> > of contributors.
> > I see that various GDAL files have different copyright assignees,
> although
> > they all use the MIT
> > license.
> >
> > Is this difficult to manage?
>
> Not until now. Copyright assignment to a single entity can be useful when
> dealing with potential future license changes, but given that X/MIT is one
> of
> the less restrictive license, it is unlikely to be needed to be changed.
>
> > For example, if GDAL is packaged for a
> > distribution such as Fedora,
> > how do you manage the license for the package?
>
> I think distributions refer to the LICENSE.TXT file at the root of GDAL
> source
> tree. The global licensing implications can however by more complex if you
> link GDAL with third-party libraries that can be GPL, LGPL, proprietary,
> etc...
>
> > Also, if a new contributor
> > were to add new functionality in a new file, is it ok for them to assign
> > copyright to themselves when submitting to the trunk ?
>
> Yes.
>
>
Awesome, thanks!
___
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

Re: [gdal-dev] GDAL license and copyright

[Greg Troxel]

Aaron Boxer  writes:

> I am trying to learn more about how open source projects manage
> copyright of contributors.  I see that various GDAL files have
> different copyright assignees, although they all use the MIT license.

(I'm not trying to counter anything Evan said; he is not only an
authoritative speaker but IMHO said everythign totally right.  I am the
chief licensing geek in pkgsrc, a multi-OS multi-arch packaging system.
This is more than what you asked, but hopefully useful background.)

As always, IANAL, TINLA.  And this is a US-centric view, although I
think not so far off for Europe and many other Berne Convention
countries.

You said "different assignees".  I think you meant "different copyright
holders".  When a person creates a work (writes code, in nerd-speak),
the basic consequence is that they hold copyright, and there is no
assignment involved.  If the code is written within the scope of
employment, then the copyright will be held by the employer, under the
"work for hire" doctrine.

Beyond that ownership at creation, copyright can be assigned by a
contract from the original holder to a new holder. (As an exception,
Europe has the concept of "moral rights" as an element of copyright
which cannot be assigned, but this has so far not been a significant
issue in software.)

Some open source projects ask that copyright be assigned to some entity
(e.g., emacs asks for an assignment to FSF, and will not merge code
until that is done).  Others have a very large number of copyright
holders.

As a packager, I don't care how many copyright holders there are.  What
I look for is a clear license, since without a license, there is no
permission to copy or to create derivative works.  The common practice
of "inbound = outbound", where contributions are only accepted if there
is a license grant equal to the project's outgoing license, both works
well and fits very well with most people's senses of fairness and
reciprocity.

As a contributor, I am happy when I get to keep copyright, not because I
really want to keep it, but because it is easy and does not require
signing something, which usually has additional terms I may not like
(e.g., indemnification).  I do not object conceptually to assigning to a
501(c)3 organization that has promotion of Free Software as a
fundamental goal (e.g. FSF, SFC, ASF).  I am not comfortable assiging to
a company, and object unless the assignment guarantees that the code
will *only* be distributed by them under Free licenses.

Greg, lurker



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev