[Sussex] GPL and copyright

[Paul Tansom]

On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:06 +0100, Geoffrey Teale wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2005 14:49, Paul Tansom wrote:
> Here goes...

Kind of figured you'd dive in here. Probably the reason I chose this
list to post to :)

> > OK, it makes sense that to keep things simple there is a single entity
> > owning copyright, but how can this work in practise? 
> 
> If you are always assigning copyright to the FSF it doesn't create an issue, 
> your later points are predicated on a different situation.

In general terms yes, in the specific case that raised the point to me a
different situation as you say.

> > Before any submission is accepted for the standard distribution, the
> > contributor is asked to hand over copyright to [persons name] and the
> > [employer]. While some people think this infringes on the rights of the
> > contributor, and goes against the philosophy of Open Source software, it
> > doesn't. First of all, no one is forcing contributors to assign
> > copyright to us -- if someone wants to maintain that control, their code
> > doesn't go into the standard distribution. Secondly, the [Project]
> > developers are only in a position to license and distribute code if they
> > legally own copyright."
> 
> I know of more than one project likes this, CUPS is a good example.
> 
> This is the main reason why my CUPS drivers are not in the main distribution.

CUPS is a bit of disappointment to me, and this could be the reason.
When I was first looking at it a few years back it seemed that you could
make use of it only if you purchased the drivers to go with it as the
most useful ones weren't available for free. I've not actually been to
the site for a long time now, just installed the Debian packages.
Drivers still seem to be an issue though since the ones recommended by
Red Hat when you install it have not yet proved to be particularly good
- invariably there are better ones! From the Debian point of view it is
a case of trundling off to linuxprinting.org to get suitable driver
files.

> > o You work on two GPL projects and use a common section of code on each
> > - how can you assign copyright to both? Nope? Scuppered!
> 
> Indeed, but if both projects would accept FSF copyright then you are OK.  I 
> would be very suspicious of the motivation of anyone who requires you to hand 
> them copyright  - the only difference to them is that they can then choose to 
> license that code under another license (i.e. not GPL, which is what the CUPS 
> guys are up to) .

Fair enough, but out of interest how many GPL based projects actually
assign copyright to the FSF? I've not noted whether it is the norm or an
exception to the rule. In the case of the Linux kernel I understood that
the copyright tended to remain with the original coder, hence a while
back when someone offered money to re-license the code it couldn't have
been taken up even if this had been wanted, since you'd have so many
people to track down and get agreement from!

> > o You produce some software that you use for your own business and
> > customers, but that you publish under the GPL, you also use the same
> > code (it is GPL after all) in a GPL project - does it make sense to
> > assign copyright of code you use for your business (I'm thinking self
> > employed here, working for a larger company adds new complications no
> > doubt!) to a third party (whoever that is).
> 
> Dual licensing can only be done by the holder of the copyright - a user of the 
> GPL code is explicitly denied the right to apply a different license to the 
> code or any derived work.  If you hand copyright to the FSF then you must 
> realise that you will not be able to use your code outside the terms of the 
> GPL - this would provent its use in non-GPL software.

I wasn't actually thinking of dual licensing, although as you say this
would not be possible. What was in my mind was that having assigned
copyright to the third party you then have to obtain permission from
them to use your own code. It sort of parallels the fact that Paul
McCartney has to pay Michael Jackson to perform his old Beatles numbers
- if my memory is serving me correctly :)

> > Is this practise common amongst GPL projects? 
> 
> Only ones run by companies that want to make proprietary versions of open 
> source software.  Generally its a sign that you want to ask serious questions 
> before submitting code to such projects.

I'm asking :) In this case there has been some discussion about joining
the dev team, although I may have annoyed them with my questions :)

> > Do they look to assign 
> > copyright to the FSF or themselves (I note this project works with the
> > project leader and his employer, although I believe he has now moved
> > jobs, so what happens there I don't know!).
> 
> Assigning copyright to the FSF is perfectly safe unless you wish to use the 
> code in non-GPL projects (which is your right as the copyright holder).  

Perfectly safe in current motives, would anyone guarantee that this will
continue. I'll accept that it is phenomenally unlikely, but I've not
actually read up on the structure of the FSF. Could it be that in the
future enough of the key players could have a change of heart? Not
saying that they would go proprietary, but they could make some other
change that some may not agree with. I'll repeat though, this is more
theoretical than likely - although I know a local sailing club that
suddenly found itself taken over by an influx of non-local members
getting committee positions and changing the club to the point where
they left en-mass and formed a new club!

> > As I said, I can see the logic in the simplistic approach of defending
> > the GPL legally, but I can see all sorts of practical problems in
> > sharing code between projects - unless the FSF ends up building up a
> > massive ownership of copyright over just about every piece of GPL code
> > in existence!
> 
> Assigning to the FSF avoids a lot of complexity if you intend the code to be 
> truly free, otherwise I'd keep hold of it.  

I'll disagree here, assigning copyright to the FSF avoids complexity
only if there is legal action taken that you need to defend against.
When it comes to the freedom of the code it is easier to retain the
copyright yourself since you can then use it for any purpose with the
freedom to license it as appropriate. I take your point though :)

> > As ever with the legal issues surrounding free software I'm finding it
> > tough to get my head around - the principle is simple, the practicality
> > in the corporate money driven society is not so :(
> 
> No, it really is simple.  Assign copyright to whomever you wish to have 
> control of the licensing, don't hand code to projects that want you to assign 
> copyright to them unless you are happy to lose control of licensing.  

Looking at it like that yes, it is simple, but that can be over
simplifying reality. If you have a project that is good and you would
like to improve, and the developers would like to accept the code things
will become complicated if you run into this issue.  One either backs
down or the code never gets used. Still, that is life and applies to
many aspects of it!

> I'll reiterate that handing it to the FSF is completely safe so long as you 
> don't wish to use your code in non-GPL applications.

I'll not reiterate anything I don't think ;)

-- 
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | http://www.aptanet.com/