Real-World Copyright Assignment
I will only integrate contributor's code into my codebase if they hand over copyright to alifegames.com (in exchange for a fair share of any profits that may derive from commercial licenses to the code in the future), so I will be able to release my own core code at any time under any license I wish. snip At Sun, we license OpenOffice.org code under both the LGPL and SISSL. Since only the copyright holder can change licensing terms for a body It seems that others think like the FSF: getting code contributors to assign copyrights to contributed code is a good thing. However, I'm very interested in the actual real-world implementation of this. What kind of language do you use in the copyright assignement agreement? Is there a template that cn be copied by others? Do you require hard copy signed and snail-mailed to consider it legal? Do you apply this to all contributions? Obviously a major feature implmentation would need it, but what about a three line patch? Where is the cutoff from a practical consideration? As to contributing back profits from the effort to the original contributors, how do you calculate the share? How can you track that? I'm considering all these issues for a release of some code I have, and it's thorny with problems. I'd be very interested in a more rigourous discussion of this - on or off the list. I'm also interested in what constitutes distribution - if someone takes GPL code and embeds it into a network appliance and sells that product as a black box and the user never even knows what happens under the hood, is that considered distribution? How can a develper enforce it if they want to license the code so that if you are free, my code is free; if you are commercial, my code is commercial? Greg (my apologies if this stuff has been covered recently - I just found this list and I cannot find any archives of it to review).
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
Henningsen wrote: My understanding is this: As the copyrightholder to my code, even if I release it under the GPL, I am not bound by the terms of the GPL, and can include code under a different license such as the MIT license. However, if someone else uses my code under the terms of the GPL, and wants to release a modified version of my code, then according to 2.b) he would have to license the entire program under the terms of the GPL, *including the parts that he received under the terms of the MIT license*. I had been thinking that it would not be legal to simply take MIT licensed code (or Tcl/Tk licensed code) and without permission of the copyright holder re-release it under the GPL. In order to understand questions such as this, one must maintain a vital distinction in mind: the difference between the license applied to an *original* work, and the license that may be applied to a *derived* work such as a program made using sources from various authors. In either case, it is the creator of the work who decides what licenses to apply, if any. 1. You may license your original works under any license(s) you choose. 2. If someone else assigns you copyright in their works (and this must be done in writing), then you may license those works under any license(s) you choose. 3. If you make a derivative work containing others' content, you may license it under any license(s) that are compatible with the licenses applicable to each of the original works that you used. You may not change the licenses applied to those original works. Suppose there are three original works: A under the GPL, B under the MIT, C under the MPL. You may create a derivative work A+B and license it under the GPL. You may not license A+B under the MIT, because you are not allowed to create derivatives of A that are not licensed under the GPL. You may not create a derivative work A+C at all, because the MPL imposes restrictions that are incompatible with the GPL: A+C cannot be licensed under either the GPL or any other license. But if A belongs to you (in the sense of points 1 or 2 above), then you may license it under the MPL as well as the GPL, and then A+C can be created and licensed under the MPL. If C does not belong to you, then you cannot relicense it under the GPL. -- 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: Real-World Copyright Assignment
Greg Herlein wrote: However, I'm very interested in the actual real-world implementation of this. What kind of language do you use in the copyright assignement agreement? Is there a template that cn be copied by others? Do you require hard copy signed and snail-mailed to consider it legal? Do you apply this to all contributions? Obviously a major feature implmentation would need it, but what about a three line patch? Where is the cutoff from a practical consideration? One project I was involved with was considering working some sort of one-time click to agree to the provisions of the license into the CVS or patch manager. That would cover assignment of copyright as well as indemnification of the developers. Since things like CVS are individual account-driven, the attorneys felt that an one-time (and for all future submissions) electronic agreement would suffice, since you could have the record of the individual developer's agreement. Is anyone familiar with something like this actually being put into practice? As to contributing back profits from the effort to the original contributors, how do you calculate the share? How can you track that? Ugh, I don't think you can. Fool's errand, IMHO. If you submit code to a project, you don't do it in expectation of future profits directly from the code. Likely unworkable and unenforcable. I'm also interested in what constitutes distribution - if someone takes GPL code and embeds it into a network appliance and sells that product as a black box and the user never even knows what happens under the hood, is that considered distribution? How can a develper enforce it if they want to license the code so that if you are free, my code is free; if you are commercial, my code is commercial? Anyone from TiVo on this list? That's their situation with the Linux kernel exactly. See http://www.tivo.com/linux/ Regards, Ned
Re: Real-World Copyright Assignment
One project I was involved with was considering working some sort of one-time click to agree to the provisions of the license into the CVS or patch manager. I thought these were considered unenforcable. Can you really give up rights from a click? I know that contracts can legally give up rights (even some promised uner the Constitution) but can a click be a binding contractual agreement? I'd be hesitant about that. Ugh, I don't think you can. Fool's errand, IMHO. If you submit code to a project, you don't do it in expectation of future profits directly from the code. Likely unworkable and unenforcable. Which brings the next thorny issue: suppose a contributor does not want to assign his/her rights to you (perhaps thinking what do I get out of this, or perhaps opposing it on principle). What then? What if that person then creates his/her own local version that does include his.her patches, effectively forking the code? Anyone from TiVo on this list? That's their situation with the Linux kernel exactly. See http://www.tivo.com/linux/ Yes, Tivo released code. Wasn't there a hubub about it though? Greg
RE: Real-World Copyright Assignment
you are free, my code is free; if you are commercial, my code is commercial? [DJW:] I believe that this would violate the definition of open source used on this mailing list, but the Kermit licence might be an example of such a (non-open source) licence. OK, maybe I need some education on the current definitions in vogue. However, from my perspective, if a body of code is licensed in such a way that it can be linked to other open source code freely provided that all that code is also released, then that's still open source. Requiring altrernative licensing arrangements if my code is to be linked to code that is not open - that does not seem like a violation of open source at all to me. The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for derivative works - then I want my code to be free for your use - ie, the code is available for inspection and derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for derivative works. However, if you want to keep your code closed - for whatever reason - or charge for the right to derive from your code, then you must make alternative (commercial) arrangments with me. Surely I cannot be the only person wanting to thread this needle. My questions relate to the PRACTICAL way to go about doing this. It's all well and good to talk about it and have these goals, but how does one actually translate that to the real world? Greg
License Question
Hello, I'm a newbie in License considerations. Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is used in a commercial application ? Thanks, Stephane
RE: Real-World Copyright Assignment
From: Greg Herlein [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The goal, as I have defined it for my project, is that if you want to use my libraries in your project and your project is open source code - ie, the code is available for inspection and derivation, and no commercial fees are charged for derivative [DJW:] That's a subset of commercial use. Some people, e.g. the kermit people, consider distribution for profit on a CD to be commercial use. They also consider any distribution were there is a commercial relationship to be commercial, but both are allowed for open source. Some people consider internal use by for profit organisations to be commercial, but this sort of use is definitely permitted for open source. Some open source licences permit conversion to binary only, non-redistributable, form, but others don't. -- --- 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: License Question
From: Stephane Routelous [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware is used in a commercial application ? [DJW:] Allow: yes. Require: I believe not. In addition, you may insist on payment before supplying the software, but you cannot prevent anyone who already has it from undercutting your price, and supplying it themselves. -- --- 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: Real-World Copyright Assignment
begin Greg Herlein quotation: Yes, this is what I am leaning towards. From a practical perspective, what is required to legally get the contributors to assign copyright to me? How are other people/orgs doing this, and are those methods going to hold up legally? The problem (and the mechanics of dealing with copyright assignment) are addressed, in some detail, in FSF's Information for Maintainers of GNU Software, http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain_toc.html . 'Hope that helps! -- Cheers, I used to be on the border of insanity. However, due Rick Moen to pressing political concerns, I recently had to invade. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Kurt Montandon, in r.a.sf.w.r-j
Re: Real-World Copyright Assignment
The problem (and the mechanics of dealing with copyright assignment) are addressed, in some detail, in FSF's Information for Maintainers of GNU Software, http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain_toc.html . 'Hope that helps! This is indeed quite useful. Sort of becoming a maintainer for a GNU project, is there any way to get copies of the assignment templates for review? What templates are other people using? Greg
Re: license-mix, legal consequences?
Rick Moen wrote: Strictly speaking, you're not barred from _making_ works with incompatible licences; the derivative work would just not be lawfully _distributable_, as so doing would violate the licensing terms of the third-party borrowed work. The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (section 106), speaks of prepar[ing] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work as one of the exclusive rights of authors. So in theory at least you are not allowed even to translate your copy of _Foundation and Empire_ into Javanese, since that is preparing a derivative work. General legal considerations like *de minimis* enter into play here, of course. -- 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: license-mix, legal consequences?
begin John Cowan quotation: The U.S. Copyright Act, at least (section 106), speaks of prepar[ing] derivative works based upon the copyrighted work as one of the exclusive rights of authors. So in theory at least you are not allowed even to translate your copy of _Foundation and Empire_ into Javanese, since that is preparing a derivative work. Yes, but... The specific example concerned software works reusing third-party GPLed code with newer code under an incompatible licence. The GPL's restrictions in question apply upon distribution, and not before. (Sorry I can't be more specific, but I'm rushed, again.) -- Cheers,Please return all dogmas to their orthodox positions. Rick Moen -- Brad Johnson, in r.a.sf.w.r-j [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Real-World Copyright Assignment
Brian Youmans, the FSF clerk handling assignements, was kind enough to send me all the templates. Other kind folks on the list did as well. Thanks to all of them. Brian indicated that the FSF did not copyright these templates so we are free to derive from them. With Rick's link to the FSF pages (http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain.html) and these templates, I now see a path towards how to do this in the real world. I'm still interested in the distribution aspects - a la Tivo and such. But thanks a bunch to all of you who helped me this morning. Greg
Re: Real-World Copyright Assignment
begin Greg Herlein quotation: Brian indicated that the FSF did not copyright these templates so we are free to derive from them. Any chance I can get an electronic copy, so I can put them up for public access? I recall, by the way, that Tripwire, Inc. is one of the other organisations requiring copyright assignment for contributed code (for its GPLed codebase). But the development site seems to have no details: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tripwire/ (Niggle: If FSF's templates have sufficient substance to be a creative work, then copyright on them exists inherently by operation of law, whether FSF claims it exists or not.) -- Cheers, kill -9 them all. Rick Moen Let init sort it out. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License Question
The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of products built using MPL code. The source version of MPL code must always be available free of charge under the MPL. But one is allowed take that source code, compile it and sell the executables. this may be hard since others can do the same. But if you have the brand, or user base that will pay for this, then one is free to do it. And of course, one can combine MPL code with other code into a product and charge for the combined product; a number of companies do this. Mitchell David Johnson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:59 am, Stephane Routelous wrote: Hello,I'm a newbie in License considerations.Does exists an OpenSource license which allow to be paid if the Sofware isused in a commercial application ?Thanks, No there isn't. But it may be possible to use an Open Source license in conjunction with a closed license to achieve the same thing. It depends upon the nature of your software, and what you consider "commercial."Trolltech licenses its Qt library under a dual QPL/GPL license. The only way you can use it for your own software is to make your stuff open source. If you want to release closed source software using Qt, you must purchase the professional license for quite a few dollars.Commercial software is NOT the same thing as closed source. But 99% of it in the real world is. A scheme like Trolltech's may work for you if your software is used for the creation of other software.
Re: License Question
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 09:58 pm, Mitchell Baker wrote: The Mozilla Public License allows one to charge for executable versions of products built using MPL code. The source version of MPL code must always be available free of charge under the MPL. But one is allowed take that source code, compile it and sell the executables. his may be hard since others can do the same. But if you have the brand, or user base that will pay for this, then one is free to do it. First, turn off the html formatting in your email client :-( Second, the MPL is hardly the only license that allows this. As I recall, so do all other open source licenses. You might not be able with some to explicitly charge for the software itself, but you can charge a reasonable fee for copying and media. Go check out what the FSF charges for their software. In my mind that stretches the boundaries of what is reasonable :-) I think what the original poster was asking, was whether it was possible to be assured of payment for commercial use. No open source license allows this, as nothing prevents the consumer from aquiring it from someone other than the producer. But since some licenses prohibit derivation in closed source products, and since the vast majority of commercial software is closed source, offering the software under an option of either open source or closed source licensing is a viable means to achieve this. It sounds to me like Stephane's software is a library of sorts, since he says if the Sofware is used in a commercial application. Trolltech is commercially successful with their library, so I suggested that route. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
