Re: Assigning copyright
On Wed, Feb 21 2001, at 22:11:52 -0800, David Johnson wrote: Since I can't locate the archives anywhere, could someone either point me to them or offer a recap of a prior discussion? I have been looking for the archive myself, and asked for it on this mailing list, but no one responded. I set up an unofficial archive, most for my own use, on http://www.lifix.fi/extarchive/license/. There is no guarantee that this archive will exist forever, be in the same location, or be publicly availabe. But as long as it works, you are welcome to use it. The first mail in the archive is dated 17 January 2001. A search engine for the list (and other archived lists) is at http://www.lifix.fi/extarchive.html Not too long ago we were discussiing assigning copyrights to a project. This subject has since entered my reality and bit me on the rump :-) I'm not sure if that discussion covered my questions, so I'll sum them up. I am interested in the subject myself, but have missed the thread. If you find it, could you please tell me which thread it is? I now have in my possession a contributed piece of code with an emailed agreement to assign the copyright to me (since there is no umbrella organization to assign it to). The pragmatic part of me says that this is the legally sensible thing to do, while the idealistic side says that it was incredibly presumptious even to ask. Was this the legal/ethical thing to do? And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada What examples are there of commercial companies that have asked contributors to assign them the copyright? TrollTech, (former) Cygnus Solutions? Are there examples of the agreements? How does the open source community relate to assigning the copyright to a company? Are there alternatives to giving away the copyright, such as licensing under a very liberate license to the company? Regards, Bjorn -- Bjorn Andersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] +358 50 341 2556 Lifix Systems Oy http://www.lifix.fi/ PGP id 5AFC144B Yliopistonkatu 5, 3rd floor; FIN-00100 Helsinki
Archives
On Thu, Feb 22 2001, at 07:39:28 -0500, Randy Kramer wrote: I've saved almost all of the list since I subscribed, and would be willing to send copies to someone somehow to add to an archive. Thanks, I'm interested. A few things: 1. I don't immediately know when I subscribed -- I have some old zips on another computer -- I know they're there, I just have to find them. 2. At times, I feared that my subscription was intermittent -- I would go long periods (days, weeks) with no posts. If that sounds like incorrect behavior, perhaps you should not accept my offer, it may just create a mess. I remember a very quite period. 3. If you want them, tell me how to package / send them -- I receive email in Netscape 3.0x, file it in Netscape mail folders, and then zip the folders when they get big. Netscape folders are normal mbox files, aren't they? Please gzip/bzip the file(s), and I'll see if I'll add them to my archive. //Bjorn -- Bjorn Andersson [EMAIL PROTECTED] +358 50 341 2556 Lifix Systems Oy http://www.lifix.fi/ PGP id 5AFC144B Yliopistonkatu 5, 3rd floor; FIN-00100 Helsinki
Re: Archives
Bjorn, A few more things before I send the files: Netscape folders are normal mbox files, aren't they? Yes, AFAIK, except: 1. There is an associated index file (.snm) which you can just ignore. 2. I collected these on Windows, so I suspect they will have a crlf where Linux expects just a lf. 3. I will zip them using WinZip. I believe you will be able to unzip it with Linux tools because WinZip can unzip .gz files. If you know you cannot handle these, let me know -- I can move it to my Linux box (after I reestablish a connection) and use gzip or whatever. It will still have the crlf problem. 4. The batch I will send you first is about 2 megs zipped, 8 megs unzipped. Will that be a problem? 5. The first batch ends around August, 2000. When we confirm working arrangements, I will zip the remainder, from then until now. 6. I subscribe to several mail lists. I sometimes filed posts from other mail lists in this file if they seemed relevant to open source licensing issues. Randy Kramer PS: I will not send the zips to the list, but to you directly. ;-) (Unless someone requests otherwise ;-)
RE: Assigning copyright
Here is a link to an archive for this list. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:iis:1:28#b -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Assigning copyright Since I can't locate the archives anywhere, could someone either point me to them or offer a recap of a prior discussion? Not too long ago we were discussiing assigning copyrights to a project. This subject has since entered my reality and bit me on the rump :-) I'm not sure if that discussion covered my questions, so I'll sum them up. I now have in my possession a contributed piece of code with an emailed agreement to assign the copyright to me (since there is no umbrella organization to assign it to). The pragmatic part of me says that this is the legally sensible thing to do, while the idealistic side says that it was incredibly presumptious even to ask. Was this the legal/ethical thing to do? And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada Thanks, -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Assigning copyright
David Johnson wrote: I now have in my possession a contributed piece of code with an emailed agreement to assign the copyright to me (since there is no umbrella organization to assign it to). The pragmatic part of me says that this is the legally sensible thing to do, It was. If the code base is under the GNU GPL, I have heard it suggested that assigning copyright to the FSF is sensible (even without their consent), since they have lawyers and a vested interest in defending the GPL. I don't know what view the FSF takes of this idea. while the idealistic side says that it was incredibly presumptious even to ask. I'm confused. Do you suspect that it is presumptuous to ask for a copyright assignment (it isn't), or that it was presumptuous for your contributor to offer one? Was this the legal/ethical thing to do? Yes. The fact that your contributor freely consented to it shows that. And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada Absent a contract, the law is silent on this. Hacker ethics demand that you preserve credit for the contributor in the final product. Whether you consider your contributor to be a co-author is a matter of taste, and probably should depend on how substantial the contribution is. Ya done good, kid. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
RE: Assigning copyright
Once again, I need to suggest that it is not appropriate to ask for (or give) specific legal advice on an OSI public discussion list. No attorney worth the paper on which his license is printed will give a specific answer to a specific question in such a forum. And any answer you get from non-lawyers will not be worth relying on. The process of transferring a copyright is not rocket science by any means. Perhaps you should refer to the website of the US Copyright Office (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/). As to whether it was "legal" to ask for the assignment of a copyright to you, please consult your own personal attorney. As to the "ethical" issues (or, indeed, the "practical" issues of copyright assignment), that IS an appropriate topic for the license-discuss list. If you reformulate your query along those lines, I'm sure you'll get lots of responses. I intend to respond separately to the general issue of copyright ownership in an open source world in a later posting, as time permits. /Larry Rosen -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 10:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Assigning copyright Since I can't locate the archives anywhere, could someone either point me to them or offer a recap of a prior discussion? Not too long ago we were discussiing assigning copyrights to a project. This subject has since entered my reality and bit me on the rump :-) I'm not sure if that discussion covered my questions, so I'll sum them up. I now have in my possession a contributed piece of code with an emailed agreement to assign the copyright to me (since there is no umbrella organization to assign it to). The pragmatic part of me says that this is the legally sensible thing to do, while the idealistic side says that it was incredibly presumptious even to ask. Was this the legal/ethical thing to do? And now that it's done, how does it actually get implemented? Do I refer to the contributor/author as a contributor or an author? yada yada yada Thanks, -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
What is Copyleft?
Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask. What is a Copyleft? The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws of the license is that: "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." I the working definition of "copyleft" I have been using is: "A way of using contract law (through a copyright license) to ensure that everyone has the freedom to copy, modify and distribute a given work. It takes the copyright law and turns it inside-out. Instead of being used to limit what you can do with a copyright work, a copyleft ensures that your freedom can't be abridged." Now, let me say that for the purposes to which RMS developed the GPL in the first place, his indication of a "flaw" with the Apple license is completely consistent. However, I would say that the ability to link with non-free code, while an incompatibility with the GPL, isn't a copyleft problem. If the license allowed a user to link to non-free code, and distribute the combination in object-form only, then I would say that it was a copyleft problem, because free code would be rendered non-free (the gestalt work would have two copyright interests; the Free part, and the non-Free part, and thus the work as a whole couldn't be distributed without additional permissions). If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load and link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not that DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program ever be written using the GPL? (I don't know enough about Linux to have an opinion about Linux code). The copyleft concept is supposed to ensure that any material I use or modify which is based on copylefted content has to obey the same terms as the original copyleft license, correct? The concept of "copyleft" itself shouldn't be so specific as to include material related to the linking model of computer software, should it? Ryan
Transfer of Copyright
There was an earlier posting asking about how copyrights are transferred. The issue of copyright transfer is a very important one for open source projects, but one that is often ignored. One important consideration is that only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled to institute an action for any infringement of that right. This means, for example, that if an open source project releases code owned by many contributors, under the GPL or any other license, the project managers do not have standing to sue to enforce the license as to that code. Only the actual copyright owner can sue. The Copyright Act (17 USC 204) reads in part: A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. I copy below some information on copyright transfer from the website of the Library of Congress. For further information, see www.loc.gov/copyright/. *** Copied from LOC website: TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement. A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession. Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney. Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents." /Larry Rosen 650-216-1597 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com www.opensource.org
Re: Transfer of Copyright
It would be delightful if people could post sample documents for the transfer of copyright. Someone asked something about transfer of copyright to for-profit companies. The idea is that some authors may be wary of transferring their rights to a for-profit company, even though the software has been released under GPL. At Nupedia (free encyclopedia using GNU FDL), we are hoping to deal with that issue by setting up a non profit foundation, the sole job of which is to own and defend the copyrights, i.e. to enforce the license. --Jimbo -- * *http://www.nupedia.com/* * The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia * *
Re: Transfer of Copyright
Jimmy Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be delightful if people could post sample documents for the transfer of copyright. Someone asked something about transfer of copyright to for-profit companies. The idea is that some authors may be wary of transferring their rights to a for-profit company, even though the software has been released under GPL. Particularly with what was just pointed out that you can only complain if you still own copyright. At Nupedia (free encyclopedia using GNU FDL), we are hoping to deal with that issue by setting up a non profit foundation, the sole job of which is to own and defend the copyrights, i.e. to enforce the license. If your product is GPLed, is there any reason to not use the FSF for this? Though if you do that, it would be polite to donate to them something to defray any extra expenses... Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: What is Copyleft?
begin Ryan S. Dancey quotation: Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask. What is a Copyleft? Your underlying point is well-taken, and perceptive: RMS's recent usage of the term indeed appears to depart from its prior (and customary) meaning, in objecting to the ability to link to non-free code. Here is FSF's answer to your question as posed, from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html : "Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it." -- Cheers,Before enlightenment, caffeine. Rick Moen After enlightenment, caffeine. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What is Copyleft?
Correct. Your quote from RMS didn't indicate whether he was referring to static or dynamic linking, but since your example uses dynamic linking, I assume that is what RMS meant as well. I do not read the copyleft in the GNU GPL to preclude runtime linking to DLLs. Indeed, to read the copyleft in that manner would raise serious questions concerning its potential copyright misuse in my opinion. There is no copyright interest that would allow a copyright holder to such a thing, and one seeking to undermine the copyright regime would seem unable to do so as well. Rod On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask. What is a Copyleft? The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws of the license is that: "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." I the working definition of "copyleft" I have been using is: "A way of using contract law (through a copyright license) to ensure that everyone has the freedom to copy, modify and distribute a given work. It takes the copyright law and turns it inside-out. Instead of being used to limit what you can do with a copyright work, a copyleft ensures that your freedom can't be abridged." Now, let me say that for the purposes to which RMS developed the GPL in the first place, his indication of a "flaw" with the Apple license is completely consistent. However, I would say that the ability to link with non-free code, while an incompatibility with the GPL, isn't a copyleft problem. If the license allowed a user to link to non-free code, and distribute the combination in object-form only, then I would say that it was a copyleft problem, because free code would be rendered non-free (the gestalt work would have two copyright interests; the Free part, and the non-Free part, and thus the work as a whole couldn't be distributed without additional permissions). If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load and link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not that DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program ever be written using the GPL? (I don't know enough about Linux to have an opinion about Linux code). The copyleft concept is supposed to ensure that any material I use or modify which is based on copylefted content has to obey the same terms as the original copyleft license, correct? The concept of "copyleft" itself shouldn't be so specific as to include material related to the linking model of computer software, should it? Ryan
Re: What is Copyleft?
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote: Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask. What is a Copyleft? The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws of the license is that: "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." For what it's worth, the FSF discussion of "Various Licenses and Comments about Them" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html makes a distinction between licenses that are "copyleft" licenses, licenses that are "not a strong copyleft", and "non-copyleft" licenses. Thus the GPL is described as a "copyleft license", but the LGPL is described as "not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules"; the MPL (which permits both static and dynamic linking with proprietary code) is also described as "not a strong copyleft". On the other hand the MIT X license and Apache licenses are described as "non-copyleft". So I think the issue at hand is not that the meaning of copyleft is directly tied to the issue of linking, it's that the FSF uses the issue of linking to try and introduce a concept of the relative "strength" of copyleft as embodied in different license. Frank -- Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
RE: What is Copyleft?
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load and link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not that DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program ever [DJW:] My understanding is that the restrictions only apply to the distribution of code. They are designed to stop people distributing code which forces the recipient to have to pay for a licence to use a pre-requisite library (static or dynamic). If that is correct, you can write a program that is derived from copylefted code and load it and link it with any DLL you like, but you cannot give it to someone else if they cannot sensibly use it without first obtaining that DLL. The real borderline case is when you supply a token version of the library. I seem to remember that this hinges on whether the full function of the copylefted code is accessible with that token library. IANAL [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: Transfer of Copyright
On Thursday 22 February 2001 09:58 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: There was an earlier posting asking about how copyrights are transferred. The issue of copyright transfer is a very important one for open source projects, but one that is often ignored. One important consideration is that only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled to institute an action for any infringement of that right. Great information. I thank you. My primary interest in getting the copyright assigned to me is so that I would be in control if there should ever be a need to change the application's licensing. Although I do not plan on this, it has happened before. Everything else I need would already be conveyed to my by the contributor's license. Pending further discussions with my contributor, I will probably NOT have him transfer the copyright to me. First, I am using the BSD license and not the GPL or another copyleft license. Changing the license for my portion of the work would not create any legal problems with contributions that might have to remain under the BSD license, so long as I keep them distinct. Second, neither the contribution nor my code are dependant upon the other. Thus, there would be no joint authorship in the application. A major patch contribution might be another matter, but in the present situation there is no need for a copyright assignment. Unless, of course, I forgot about something. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Assigning copyright
On Thursday 22 February 2001 07:05 am, Brice, Richard wrote: Here is a link to an archive for this list. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:iis:1:28#b Thanks for the link. It took a bit of searching, but I found the thread back in April. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: What is Copyleft?
On Thursday 22 February 2001 02:16 pm, John Cowan wrote: No, DLLs are in the same address space as the main program. They are ordinary code that instead of being mapped at link time, is mapped at the beginning of run time. Calls to a routine in a DLL are essentially ordinary subroutine calls indirected through a table of pointers. "address space" is an arbitrary criteria (as is the similar "process space"). I have serious doubts that it's even legally valid. A better criteria is needed. It is not the author doing the mapping of addresses, it is the OS. All the author is doing is using an API. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Fw: What is Copyleft?
Inadvertantly sent just to Mr. Dixon - my apologies to him for the double post. From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ I said, in reference to various library linking examples:] How can that create a derivative work? Well, the question is why wouldn't it? Because you're not modifying the original work. You're not adding anything to it. The two parts (the Program and the Library) aren't ever combined into one work. If you would argue that they are combined because they're both loaded into memory together, than you'd have to say that everything in the computer's memory formed a derivative work, so you could never use a GPL'd program unless every byte of information in the computer's memory was also GPL'd. If I use a GPL'd program to output a CSV data file, and import that into a database, is a derivative work created that combines my code and the database? Try a better hypo or simply state what you are driving at. My above example is flawed. It should have read "a database management program". I'm suggesting that the definition of a derivative work can't include data being passed between two independent pieces of code, via file, via a network, or via an internal process communication. Making a function call is not the same thing as actually incorporating the code of that function into the body of the calling code. When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code. When the two are separated by a run-time linking, there can be no derivative work. Imagine this example: I write a program which runs interactively. It takes an input of the name of a DLL. The program loads the DLL, which will cause some of the code in that DLL to excecute automatically when the library is loaded, even if the calling program does nothing. If the hypothosis that run-time linking created derivative works is true, the above program could never be covered by the GPL. This is not such a far-fetched example. This is how printer and video drivers work in Windows, for example; and many are not distributed with the OS. It would be impossible to write a GPL'd program that used the standard device-driver model for printing using Windows if this run-time linking hypothesis were valid. There is, however, one disadvantage; the copyright holder of the library might create problems if they are or become an opponent of open source. I think that's a danger of calling functions in non-free libraries. I think it's a potential design flaw. I don't think it's a copyright violation, thus I don't think the GPL governs the situation. Ryan
Re: Fw: What is Copyleft?
On Thursday 22 February 2001 10:37 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: I'm suggesting that the definition of a derivative work can't include data being passed between two independent pieces of code, via file, via a network, or via an internal process communication. Making a function call is not the same thing as actually incorporating the code of that function into the body of the calling code. Though I'm on your "side", there is a big difference between data transfer and code execution. Transferring data between two processes by way of IPC or a network protocol is in a completely different realm than a single thread of execution weaving its way in and out between an application and a library. When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code. When the two are separated by a run-time linking, there can be no derivative work. The FSF makes a distinction between dynamic linkage and run-time linkage (corba, etc). Some criteria between the two are flawed, but one that is worth considering is that with dynamic linkage, the *intent* to link GPL to non-GPL code is made by the author, while with run-time linkage it is made by the user at runtime. If there were two libraries with sufficiently similar APIs, then dynamic linkage would be allowed, because the intent could have been to link with one or the other. An example would be writing a GPL app to link with either Motif or Lesstif. I think that using "intent" as a criteria is still rather weak, but it is a term found throughout copyright law. Your example of printer drivers for Windows already has an exception to it, since the driver will be interfacing with the operating system. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: What is Copyleft?
"Ryan S. Dancey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code. When the two are separated by a run-time linking, there can be no derivative work. Actually, this has nothing to do with the issue of compile-time vs. run-time linking. Here's an example: Suppose I take an ordinary, simple, statically linked program that is licensed under the GPL. I want to add some code to it and keep it secret, so I do something like obfuscate the C source or hide the source altogether and distribute object files only. This obviously goes against the "preferred form" clause of the GPL. However, it would not be a violation under your logic, as the proprietary modifications can easily be "extricated" using diff or a similar utility. (Suppose that I am not distributing the final binary, but the tarball containing the original source and proprietary files.) What differentiates this scenario from the "mere aggregation" that the GPL specifically disclaims? The way in which the original files and the proprietary files interact -- their function call prototypes, their linker symbols, the "data being passed between two independent pieces of code." It is not insignificant. --
Re: Fw: What is Copyleft?
From: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Making a function call is not the same thing as actually incorporating the code of that function into the body of the calling code. Though I'm on your "side", there is a big difference between data transfer and code execution. Transferring data between two processes by way of IPC or a network protocol is in a completely different realm than a single thread of execution weaving its way in and out between an application and a library. As a practical matter, I agree. As a programmer, I understand the concept of a "thread of execution". Does the copyright statute? In other words, does the law see a series of instructions executed in a certain order as a derivative work, regardless of how those instructions came to be excecuted in that order? Imagine I have two novels. On page 100 of Novel A, there is an instruction: Open up Novel B, turn to Chapter 7. When finished, come back to this point and continue reading. As the reader, (the processor in this analogy) I follow these instructions. My "thread of execution" takes me from Page 100 in Novel A, to Chapter 7 of Novel B, and back to page 100 of Novel A again. Are Novel A and B now a derivative work? Ryan
