| |||||||||||
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld)Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld)Posted Apr 20, 2005 0:24 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) by beoba Parent article: Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) I don't know about AbiWord. The FSF also requires legal assignment. The distinction, though, is that the FSF's standard assignment contract prevents the FSF from taking the code proprietary. Now, one nice thing about Sun's assignment terms is that, after it is executed, the contributor and Sun both retain copyright. With the FSF, the contributor signs over copyright, and is granted back rights to use the contributed work without restriction (including in a proprietary work), but that's weaker than remaining a joint owner. Please note that I'm not saying that Sun is wrong for choosing the terms that they did, it's just that these terms will tend to limit Sun's competitors' incentive to contribute.
(Log in to post comments)
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 20, 2005 1:48 UTC (Wed) by British (guest, #19768) [Link] The reason the FSF do that I understand is that only the copyright owner can take someone to court over infringment. So it makes it easy for them to do that.
I think Sun's remark was a cheap shot at IBM, how many opensource programs do Sun use that they do not contribute to?
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 20, 2005 12:35 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] With the FSF, the contributor signs over copyright Nope. With the FSF, the contributor still retains all original author's rights. Since the FSF also promises not to exercise the "take it proprietary" right it would have from a copyright assignment, the only one who can dual-license the product is the author(s).
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 20, 2005 13:08 UTC (Wed) by nathan (subscriber, #3559) [Link] With the FSF you sign a 'copyright assignment' thereby giving the FSF the copyright on the work -- for the reasons mentioned above about being able to sue.
The nice thing about the GPL is it protects you, the author, from the FSF going nuts. They could decide to relicense it under some other licence (they are the copyright owner, so can do that). In the insanely unlikely event they did so under a non-GPL like license, you still have access to the work under the GPL license anyway -- because unlike certain other licenses it can't be retroactively terminated.
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 20, 2005 14:12 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You are both wrong. The assignment is a contract, of course. The copyrightdoes go to the FSF, but the FSF licenses back all of the original rights so you can still use your work in a proprietary work or whatever. However the contract forbids the FSF from releasing the work under a non-GPL license so you don't have to worry about them turning into a company or something. And, as you said, you always have access to the work based on any license you distributed it with before the assignment of copyright.
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 20, 2005 20:26 UTC (Wed) by hmmm (guest, #28931) [Link] Its the stupid, stupid.
This is on a per application basis. Something like GCC expects you to sign over copyright for any contributions you want included into their distribution. You can always take their code, add you modifications, keep your copyright and distribute it without any problems, but if you want your code to make it into GCC 4.0 you need to sign over copyright so they can legally enforce the GPL on their software.
The FSF does not do this. The copyright owners do this. The same thing happens for the Linux kernel.
Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) Posted Apr 21, 2005 0:49 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] The FSF certainly does do this. Or, if you prefer, the GNU project does.All non-trivial changes require copyright assignment to the FSF in order to be incorporated into the FSF-distributed version. Of course you an fork, as that is your right under the GPL; that has nothing to do with who holds the copyright.
Joint ownership of copyright is a problem Posted Apr 20, 2005 12:41 UTC (Wed) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] Now, one nice thing about Sun's assignment terms is that, after it is executed, the contributor and Sun both retain copyright.So Sun says Joe Thirdparty can't use the code you wrote, and you say he can. This puts you and Sun at legal odds, and suddenly the "nice thing" is not so nice anymore. In fact, it's just as if it belongs only to Sun 'cause they have more legal resources than JoeBuck has to draw on. Clear transfer to the FSF, without waffling about whether the code becomes proprietary later, is for most people a much better way to ensure the code stays Free. Go ahead, ask IBM why they don't contribute to OOo. The answer pretty much pulls the rug out from under Sun's open governance ruse. Please note that I'm not saying that Sun is wrong for choosing the terms that they did, it's just that these terms will tend to limit Sun's competitors' incentive to contribute. It also limits Sun's customers' incentive to contribute.
Joint ownership of copyright is a problem Posted Apr 20, 2005 14:13 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] > So Sun says Joe Thirdparty can't use the code you wrote, and you say> he can. This puts you and Sun at legal odds, and suddenly the "nice > thing" is not so nice anymore. In fact, it's just as if it belongs > only to Sun 'cause they have more legal resources than JoeBuck has to > draw on.
With joint copyright holders, either party can license the work without the consent of the other party. So if you give a license to Joe Thirdparty, Sun can't take them to court.
Of course, this would only apply to your own code -- not other people's contributions. It does put Sun in the unique position of being able to license OpenOffice as a whole though, which is the idea of the copyright assignment (like it or not).
|
|||||||||||