Hi Mark( and rest of community)-
To respond on the copyright- here are the answers. The copyright is
now owned by DSpace Foundation, Inc.. This happened last October
2007. The Foundation was able to transfer the legal copyright from HP
and MIT to the Foundation. The Foundation is a legal entity and its
mission is to promote and advance the dspace platform enabling
management, access and preservation of digital works. One of the key
reasons the copyright was transferred was so the mission of the
organization would always be in complete alignment with keep the code
viable, free and open source.
None of the licensing has changed. The outbound license is still BSD,
same as it has been all along. I misspoke, there is no contributor
notice and never was. It was decided that effort required to track
contributor notices and the issues it would create with University
organizations would outweigh the benefits of having the notice.
All that needs to be done for 1.5 is to change the boiler plate from
HP and MIT to DSpace Foundation, Inc.. Otherwise, everything else
should stay the same.
In the coming month we will write more details on the web and wiki to
clarify this position.
Mackenzie and Richard- if I missed something here please add.
On Mar 17, 2008, at 3:12 PM, dspace-devel-
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:25:25AM -0400, Michele Kimpton wrote:
>> The copyright of the source code has been transferred to the
>> Foundation as the legal entity. So at a minimum this needs to be
> Changed specifically how? Is there a page somewhere with the new
> Just to be perfectly clear: when contributing an entirely new source
> file (not patches to an existing module), the contributor must assign
> copyright to the Foundation? What's the legal name of the Foundation?
> Is there a separate instrument to make the assignment, or do we just
> assert the Foundation's name in the copyright notice? Like:
> Copyright (C) YEAR The DSpace Foundation. All rights reserved.
>> Once code is contributed it must be compatible with the BSD
>> license, as the license of the code has not changed.
> "Compatible". That's what I needed to know w.r.t. the license.
>> We may want to
>> look at the contributors standard notice to ensure it is clear that
>> once the code is contributed it falls under the "umbrella" copyright
>> of the code managed by the Foundation.
> There's a contributor's standard notice? That would take care of the
> copyright questions, then. Where, please?
> Sorry, but all I found at http://www.dspace.org was a reference to the wiki
> article, which didn't seem to address my question. And, where lawyers
> are involved, I want everything nailed down from the start.
> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@...
> Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he
> means the exact opposite.