Copyright and licencing of Frogface
Status: Planning
Brought to you by:
declanmcgrath
Menu
▾
▴
Hi folks,
As there has been a lot of talk in the open source over the last couple of years, it is unfortunately a heavy burden for project leaders to undertake. Issues such as the SCO case, discussions around GPL 3 and the recent talk concerning Microsoft/Novell agreements are food for thought. I've been doing a bit of research recently on the topic in order to try to follow the recommendations of other leading open source projects and personalities. So I've open this thread in order to clarify any issues people might have (I'm very open to suggestions - not being a legal eagle myself)...
Firstly, Frogface is licenced under the GPL - a licence open source developers are comfortable with and trust. Licence info is currently in the COPYING and LICENCE files and brief reference to the license is included in each source code file.
Secondly, organisations such as the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and people such as Eric Raymond have written on the subject of copyright assignment from contributors to a single entity - be it a person or an organisation. The reasons for this is to allow a single entity to make licence decisions for a piece of software - in the right hands this empowers the entity to take steps to protect software freedom against legal loopholes. I'm not sure what could be done with it in the wrong hands, but my understanding is that GPL'd software would always be free under the GPL so any GPL'd code will always be available in the public domain. Additionally (I really need to double check this), my understanding is that the contributor would still have copyright over his contribution - so he or she could still use their contribution as they see fit - the point of copyright assignment is that so could the person that the copyright has been assigned to.
I'm currently leaning towards requiring developers to sign a copyright form and will come to a decision on the matter over the next week or so. Once, this is decision is taken, I'll proceed with adding interested developers to the project. Please add any comments or advice to this thread as you see fit. I'd really appreciate it!
All the best,
Declan
Hi all,
Just an update on the copyright status of Frogface.
Further to my post above I found out the following details (which are as correct as to the best of my knowledge)
* Traditionally, Copyright Assignment (C.A.) DOES mean that the developers give up their copyright claim to the code the are assigning to someone. I don't like the idea of this - because it is the contributors code and I think that one shouldn't have to (or even be able to ) just 'give up copyright' overnight - then it is as if they never wrote the code. Now C.A. no doubt generally comes with assurances for the developer that they will be allowed to use the code and so on. But the 'giving up of copyright' just doesn't make sense to me - even from a legal point of view, as soon as you write something it is automatically copyrighted. It doesn't make sense to lose it.
* I'm not 100% sure on this but such C.A. agreements aren't legal in certain places. Particularly in Europe, and as an example, I don't think that a copyright holder legally can give up copyright in Germany. It is actually illegal to give up copyright there. I, for one, think that this is the right thing. Maybe I am just being a bit European about it...
* So the only solution that I have found so far that I am comfortable with is that of Joint Copyright Assignment (J.C.A.). This does not take copyright away from the contributor - they still have copyright over the code. Rather it allows the assignee to ALSO have copyright over the code. This way a single person or entity can lay legal claim to the full code base and manage it - the assignee. The contributor still has copyright right to his contribution too. As far as I can see, this is the best solution to managing a code base.
As a result, I've been in trying to get in contact with people at Sun Microsystems about using their J.C.A. To try to write your own J.C.A. would be a legal minefield and to put one word wrong could have serious consequences - better to get one that's been approved by the lawyers of a major software company. Sun have gotten back to me today on the issue - and have (very kindly) granted permission to use their J.C.A. with the name 'Sun' taken out and replaced where appropriate.
Hence, I would like to move forward with using the J.C.A. for contributions to Frogface.
What will this mean for ye guys - basically I will issue each contributor with a form similar to the one at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf but fitted out for Frogface. You then have to fill it in and fax it back to me.
I haven't set this idea in stone or anything and would like to hear your feedback on this issue if it concerns you at all.
Regards,
Dec