firebird-docs

[Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Robert J M. <rj...@ar...>]

I think the current copyright regime for the docs looks a bit 
unmanageable. I would have something like this:

* By contributing to the documentation project, you are automatically 
granting the firebird foundation a non-exclusive, perpetual license to 
use it however they wish.
* The foundation agrees to release your contribution to the world under 
a creative commons attribution, sharealike license, and may release it 
under other licenses in future 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/)
* In certain cases, you may contribute material that you do not have 
full copyright ownership over. In these cases, you must mark the 
contribution with an XML tag so that it can be identified by the 
foundation, and they will be able to abide by the license terms. The 
cases are as follows:
 - Postgresql documentation license
 - (add others)

Robert Munro

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Paul V. <pa...@vi...>]

Hi Robert,

> I think the current copyright regime for the docs looks a bit
> unmanageable. I would have something like this:
>
> * By contributing to the documentation project, you are
> automatically granting the firebird foundation a non-exclusive,
> perpetual license to use it however they wish.
>
> * The foundation agrees to release your contribution to the world
> under a creative commons attribution, sharealike license, and may
> release it under other licenses in future
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/)
>
> * In certain cases, you may contribute material that you do not have
> full copyright ownership over. In these cases, you must mark the
> contribution with an XML tag so that it can be identified by the
> foundation, and they will be able to abide by the license terms. The
> cases are as follows:
>  - Postgresql documentation license
>  - (add others)

The Foundation neither runs nor owns Firebird, so if already you
want to relinquish the copyrights to your work, it should be to the
Firebird Project. But I don't think it's necessary, or even useful:
anything you place on SourceForge MUST be Open Source. That alone is
enough for the project (or anybody else, for that matter) to use it;
not in every way they please, but at least in every way that makes
sense for the further development of the project and its
documentation. All this can be done easily and legally, while you
still retain the copyright to your work.

If you don't include a copyright notice with your work, I suppose the
"default" project OS license (IPL) applies, but I don't know if this
is legally watertight. It just seems kinda logical to me.


Greetings,
Paul Vinkenoog, (C) 1959

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Robert J M. <rj...@ar...>]

Paul Vinkenoog wrote:

 >Hi Robert,
 >
 > 
 >
 >>I think the current copyright regime for the docs looks a bit
 >>unmanageable. I would have something like this:
 >>
 >>* By contributing to the documentation project, you are
 >>automatically granting the firebird foundation a non-exclusive,
 >>perpetual license to use it however they wish.
 >>
 >>* The foundation agrees to release your contribution to the world
 >>under a creative commons attribution, sharealike license, and may
 >>release it under other licenses in future
 >>(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/)
 >>
 >>* In certain cases, you may contribute material that you do not have
 >>full copyright ownership over. In these cases, you must mark the
 >>contribution with an XML tag so that it can be identified by the
 >>foundation, and they will be able to abide by the license terms. The
 >>cases are as follows:
 >> - Postgresql documentation license
 >> - (add others)
 >>   
 >>
 >
 >The Foundation neither runs nor owns Firebird, so if already you
 >want to relinquish the copyrights to your work, it should be to the
 >Firebird Project.
 >
Legally speaking, what is the Firebird project? What does it own? I
thought that copyright on Firebird was with Borland + individual
contributors, all under the IPL. As we are already restricted to the
IPL, we can't do anything else other than continue with it. There is not
much to be gained by contributors assigning there code to anyone (unless
they assign to borland and it can then go into IB7). If code was
assigned to a foundation, then it may be possible to get an agreement
from a future Borland to re-license the code in some way that was
beneficial.

 >But I don't think it's necessary, or even useful:
 >anything you place on SourceForge MUST be Open Source. That alone is
 >enough for the project (or anybody else, for that matter) to use it;
 >not in every way they please, but at least in every way that makes
 >sense for the further development of the project and its
 >documentation. All this can be done easily and legally, while you
 >still retain the copyright to your work.
 > 
 >
I want to avoid the situation of different pages of the docs being
copyrighted all over the place. It would be a nightmare if there were
ever an occasion in future where it mattered. One really obvious case I
can see is publishing the documentation in a book. The foundation might
want to put the documentation under a non-commercial license and then
publish, raising money for the foundation without allowing others to
publish it for free, but still allowing free use on the web etc.

IPL sounds like a silly license to use because it has an advertise
Borland clause "This product includes software developed by Borland
Software Corp." The documentation doesn't. It may in future have to
include the postgres license, which also covers postgres documentation
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/LEGALNOTICE.html

An important point I did make above was not to assign code to the
foundation, but to allow them unrestricted usage. Authors could still
use the bits they write for whatever other purpose they like regardless
(e.g. a magazine article or something)

Robert Munro

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Paul V. <pa...@vi...>]

Hi Robert,

>> The Foundation neither runs nor owns Firebird, so if already you
>> want to relinquish the copyrights to your work, it should be to the
>> Firebird Project.

> Legally speaking, what is the Firebird project? What does it own?

I suppose the answer to both questions would come close to "nothing".
So perhaps transferring copyrights to the project would be impossible.
And even if not, I don't want to suggest that this would make sense.
But to me it would make even less sense to donate my copyrights to the
Foundation, because the Foundation doesn't write, manage or publish
Firebird docs (or code).

> I thought that copyright on Firebird was with Borland + individual
> contributors, all under the IPL. As we are already restricted to the
> IPL, we can't do anything else other than continue with it.

This is true for Borland code and anything derived from it. But
there's a lot of new code already, and the individual developers have
chosen various OS licenses for their contributed code. There was an
interesting thread about this in Firebird-devel not long ago.

Our documentation is new, so we can choose any OS license there.

BTW, the project summary states MPL as the OS license. I suppose this
is the chosen "default" for fresh contributions. Or perhaps it's just
there because they had to fill in *something*.

> I want to avoid the situation of different pages of the docs being
> copyrighted all over the place. It would be a nightmare if there
> were ever an occasion in future where it mattered.

Well, we don't exactly have dozens of active docwriters. But even if
we had (let's hope we will!) : as long as they all use SF-approved OS
licenses (and they must; that's an SF requirement) it will always
remain possible to keep building on their contributions.

> One really obvious case I can see is publishing the documentation in
> a book. The foundation might want to put the documentation under a
> non-commercial license and then publish, raising money for the
> foundation...

It could do that already now, at least with regard to the OS license
aspect. No need to grant them extra rights. I'm not sure if the
Foundation is allowed to *sell* something for profit though.

> ...without allowing others to publish it for free, but still
> allowing free use on the web etc.

Keeping others from publishing it is impossible with an OS License.
And we can't use anything but OS licenses -- unless we keep our docs
outside of the project.

> An important point I did make above was not to assign code to the
> foundation, but to allow them unrestricted usage.

You're right, I interpreted that too quickly as "giving your
copyrights to the Foundation". Guess I have to think a little slower
sometimes :-)

But I still don't see the benefit in giving the FF unrestricted usage
rights. It just doesn't need them.


Greetings,
Paul Vinkenoog

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Helen B. <he...@tp...>]

At 01:19 AM 11/03/2004 +0100, you wrote:

>The Foundation neither runs nor owns Firebird, so if already you
>want to relinquish the copyrights to your work, it should be to the
>Firebird Project. But I don't think it's necessary, or even useful:
>anything you place on SourceForge MUST be Open Source. That alone is
>enough for the project (or anybody else, for that matter) to use it;
>not in every way they please, but at least in every way that makes
>sense for the further development of the project and its
>documentation. All this can be done easily and legally, while you
>still retain the copyright to your work.
>
>If you don't include a copyright notice with your work, I suppose the
>"default" project OS license (IPL) applies, but I don't know if this
>is legally watertight. It just seems kinda logical to me.

Don't forget that open-sourcing your work is *not* the same as relinquishing your copyright (something that seems to have eluded the riddled brains of dear Darl and his family).  If you put a copyright notice on anything that you wrote as original work, the IDPL announces to the world that you are the copyright owner.  Open Source licensing reinforces personal copyright, it doesn't override it.  What it does is give the public implicit permission to use and modify your work and publish the modifications under the same terms.  The work that the contributor adds is copyright to the contributor.

You are *allowed* to relinquish your own copyright, but you certainly are not obliged to. 

btw, if you're not squeamish and you want to read a crackup, go here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/36116.html

Helen
(c) 2004 <g>

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Paul V. <pa...@vi...>]

Hi Helen,

> Helen
> (c) 2004 <g>

BC ?  <bg>


Grtz,
Paul

Re: [Firebird-docs] Copyright

[Paul V. <pa...@vi...>]

Hi Helen,

> btw, if you're not squeamish and you want to read a crackup, go
> here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/36116.html

Nice one! :-)


Greetings,
Paul Vinkenoog