| |||||||||||||
Copyright Assignment MehCopyright Assignment MehPosted Nov 9, 2010 20:58 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)Parent article: LPC: Michael Meeks on LibreOffice and code ownership
I fully agree with a lot of the criticism about copyright assignment - it adds beaurocracy, suit involvement, and all that. However, aside from that additional overhead, it isn't intrinsically evil - which can easily be seen from the fact that projects with copyright assignment can be forked into ones without such assignment. In other words, it allows those that do not like copyright assignment to always get to where they want to be.
And this is the part of the criciticm of copyright assignment that I don't get. If we really believe in our FOSS licenses - and we should, otherwise why use them - then they will preseve our freedoms in both copyright assignment projects or in non-copyright assignment projects. To say that there is something non-free or evil or wrong about copyright assignment projects, seems to imply that our FOSS licenses are deficient, if they cannot guarantee our freedoms.
But, they can and they do, as we can see from the possibility of forks, and examples of them.
Again, I don't care for copyright assignment myself - it just adds overhead. But I wouldn't stop myself from contributing to a project that does have it, or prefer one project over another because of it. It doesn't matter to me, as long as both projects use an open source license. That's the important part, not copyright assignment.
The only real difference with copyright assignment is that it allows the person getting the copyrights to offer *additional* licenses. Typically this is used to offer commercial/nonfree licenses, like Qt and MySQL do. I see no problem with a company making money in this way. It seems though that a lot of the anti-copyright assignment criticism stems from a distaste of such things. But making money is not antithetical to FOSS, in this context (as often mentioned, you can sell GPL software, odd as it sounds to people that are new to FOSS).
OTOH I do see a big advantage in being able to change FOSS licenses later on. If the vast majority of a community would like to change the FOSS license their project uses, they should be able to (it should take a special majority - just like changing the constitution of a country requires a special majority). Copyright assignment makes that possible. But again, this isn't a big enough of a deal that I would prefer copyright assignment over the lack of it.
(Log in to post comments)
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 9, 2010 22:00 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
_You_ may not see a problem when Some Company uses your code in ways that are not covered by the license you and I are operating under.
However, _I_ surely do. The Free Software movement is based on equality. I get your code and can modify and enhance it, you get to do the same thing with mine, and thereby we all benefit. That's the key reason why the GPL exists.
You only need copyright assignment for one single reason, and that's to create and sell something that contains my code but is not bound by the license. I, as a lowly contributor, may not do that. Only the assignee can. That's a fundamental inequality, and it cannot be fixed by forking.
Bottom line: I will not sign such an agreement.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 9, 2010 23:16 UTC (Tue) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> You only need copyright assignment for one single reason, and that's to create and sell something that contains my code but is not bound by the license.
To be fair, there are other reasons, such as keeping open the option to switch FOSS licenses down the road. I'm not saying this is the most common reason or important one - I think you are right that the commercial aspect is usually dominant in the relevant projects.
> I, as a lowly contributor, may not do that. Only the assignee can. That's a fundamental inequality, and it cannot be fixed by forking.
By forking, you take away their capability to do that - with new code in your fork. In time, your fork may become the dominant one, and you will have essentially converted the old copyright assignment project into one without copyright assignment. Exactly this may happen with MySQL and OpenOffice.
So I would say, yes, the problem you are concerned with *can* be fixed by forking, and FOSS licenses are designed exactly to allow such fixing. If they could not fix in such a way, they could not guarantee our freedoms.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 0:43 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> In other words, it allows those that do not like copyright assignment to always get to where they want to be.
No, it does not allow them to ensure that their code is always copylefted, if that is their desire.
This is flawed logic. Licenses can only affect (preserve freedoms) on code which falls under that license. Copyright assignment allows this code to potentially be relicensed under an entirely different license, this says nothing of the original license.
> But I wouldn't stop myself from contributing to a project that does have it, or prefer one project over another because of it. It doesn't matter to me, as long as both projects use an open source license. That's the important part, not copyright assignment.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 2:28 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> This makes sense if you would be OK normally releasing your code as BSD, but not if you would instead chose only the GPL (or only another copyleft license). Surely you should be able to see how this would potentially be unacceptable to those who want their code to be protected by the GPL?
Of course, I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it, and I see the logic in it.
However, you don't need to be 'ok with the BSD' to be ok with this. Your code, with copyright assignment, is still GPLed. It just has another license. That doesn't take away the freedoms of the GPL, it just allows other people - that prefer to do so - to get it under that other license.
Again, I respect your opinion. If you want your code to always be GPLed, and never available under any other circumstances, then I can see how copyright assignment is not for you. But, if someone wants their code to be GPL, but *doesn't* mind additional uses of it, then they would be fine with copyright assignment.
All of these are legitimate positions to take, I hope we can agree on that.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 3:23 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> However, you don't need to be 'ok with the BSD' to be ok with this. Your code, with copyright assignment, is still GPLed. It just has another license. That doesn't take away the freedoms of the GPL, it just allows other people - that prefer to do so - to get it under that other license.
No, this is false, it could take away the freedoms of the GPL (the freedom which the GPL assures). What makes you believe that this cannot be the case? What would guarantee that this would not be the case?
If I write code and submit it to a project with copyright assignment, and they chose to release my code with a non free license, receivers of that code may, or may not benefit from the freedoms which I want them to benefit from, freedoms which the GPL assures them. There are many situations where this could be the case. A simple example would be: if they combined my submitted code with proprietary code and distributed it disallowing modifications. The receivers of that software would not have the legal ability to modify the resultant work (not even the sections which I contributed), they would have lost that particular GPL assured freedom.
> But, if someone wants their code to be GPL, but *doesn't* mind additional uses of it, then they would be fine with copyright assignment.
This is true. But it seems unlikely that someone would take that stance, since there would then be no additional benefits of the GPL over the BSD license then. It is extra effort to chose the GPL, why would somone chose it only to have it be subverted? Obvisouly, they may do so, there just doesn't seem to be any incentive to do so. Can you suggest one?
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 4:33 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> A simple example would be: if they combined my submitted code with proprietary code and distributed it disallowing modifications. The receivers of that software would not have the legal ability to modify the resultant work (not even the sections which I contributed), they would have lost that particular GPL assured freedom.
They can still get the GPLed code that you wrote, from a different source - the FOSS version of it from that same company selling the proprietary version, or from you, or from a fork that is 100% FOSS, etc. The GPL precisely makes that possible.
> Obvisouly, they may do so, there just doesn't seem to be any incentive to do so. Can you suggest one?
As I already explained, it's useful for switching FOSS licenses. For example, it is currently essentially impossible to switch the Linux kernel to GPL3 from GPL2. I think FOSS communities need to change licenses sometimes, and copyright assignment makes that possible.
I see the validity in your position too. I just happen to disagree. I hope you feel the same way.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 5:09 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> They can still get the GPLed code that you wrote, from a different source - the FOSS version of it from that same company selling the proprietary version, or from you, or from a fork that is 100% FOSS, etc. The GPL precisely makes that possible.
Perhaps they could get it somewhere else (assuming they even know that they can, and that it is still available somewhere else), but that only addresses some of the freedoms that the GPL gives, non copyleft covered ones. You are not addressing all of the freedoms, yet you claim you that they can all be addressed. I am saying "you cannot get B, C, and D", and you keep replying: "yes you can, you can get A!"
>> But, if someone wants their code to be GPL, but *doesn't* mind additional uses of it, then they would be fine with copyright assignment.
I tought that you were making a blanket statement about not minding any kind of additonal uses. Yes, for some very specific additional uses, not ones left to the discretion of the assignee, I can see how this will likely seem useful to some.
> I see the validity in your position too. I just happen to disagree. I hope you feel the same way.
No, not at all. I am not judging your position ethically, I am judging it logically, and I am claiming that it is simply not valid (the position about all the GPL freedoms being preserved).
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 5:21 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> Perhaps they could get it somewhere else (assuming they even know that they can, and that it is still available somewhere else), but that only addresses some of the freedoms that the GPL gives, non copyleft covered ones. You are not addressing all of the freedoms, yet you claim you that they can all be addressed. I am saying "you cannot get B, C, and D", and you keep replying: "yes you can, you can get A!"
I don't follow. What are B,C,D here? As I understand it, if they get the GPL source from someplace else, they get all the freedoms of the GPL with that source - what is the mising B,C,D?
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 6:23 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> I don't follow. What are B,C,D here? As I understand it, if they get the GPL source from someplace else, they get all the freedoms of the GPL with that source - what is the mising B,C,D?
But they don't get those freedoms on the same program then. If they are given program P under a proprietery license (program P is a modified version of program Q which I distribute), which includes the code I released under the GPL, and they get the source to program Q under the GPL from somewhere else, it does not mean that they get the freedoms of the GPL for program P (since program P is different from Q).
The missing B, C, D could be anything that is covered by the GPL. If I had to assign them each an important missing freedom, I would note B as: the right to modify program P (as I already pointed out in my example), also I would note C as: the right to the source of program P, and D as: the right to redistribute program P. If B, C, D and are restricted by the proprietary relicense of program P, the receiver will not get those freedoms on P, they will only get them on Q.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of copyleft? I would suggest reading these pages, perhaps they will clarify some things that I am attempting (poorly I guess) to convey:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 6:42 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link]
> But they don't get those freedoms on the same program then.
Ok, fine, then we basically agree on all the facts. We're just confusing ourselves with language.
I care that they *can* get all those freedoms for that source code - they might need to get it from somewhere else though. You care about getting those freedoms for the actual program they receive. Neither of us is right or wrong, just different focus.
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of copyleft?
Actually I've been advocating for copyleft, and writing copylefted code, for quite a long time now :)
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 17:36 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>I care that they *can* get all those freedoms for that source code - they might need to get it from somewhere else though
They can get all of those freedoms if the code is released under a BSD license, so why choose the GPL in the first place if you don't care about the copyleft terms that the GPL adds?
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 10, 2010 18:42 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Indeed even has contributors to a GPL or proprietary licensed codebase, as an individual contributor you can offer your contributions under a more liberal license such as BSD and a project should be able to accept them even if they don't require copyright assignment. If your personal politics are such that the terms of the GPL( or proprietary licensing) are too restrictive for you, then you are still free to offer your original work under a more expansive license such as the BSD and a GPL( or proprietary) project can consume those contributions without issue even in situations where they later feel a re-license is necessary. BSD licensed contributions should present no insurmountable problems even in a re-licensing situation.
-jef
Forking doesn't work Posted Nov 11, 2010 9:48 UTC (Thu) by mmeeks (subscriber, #56090) [Link]
Hi there,
> And this is the part of the criciticm of copyright assignment that I
Ah - you are one of the 'too nice' people that hasn't twisted their brain around the tortured world of proprietary contracts. As soon as a company steps away from a transparent, open Free Software license - the proprietary license will almost certainly have "non-fork" provisions - such that these guys are bound to the other side of whatever fork you do. So - sure, of course you always have the right to fork: but the effectiveness of doing that on your own is going to be small, and you may find you have a set of stake-holders that agree with your direction; but simply cannot help you due to their proprietary license agreement.
So - the 'additional' licenses, people get, often do not simply give people the ability to re-use the code in proprietary software; but bind them in many other, un-acceptable ways.
HTH.
Copyright Assignment Meh Posted Nov 14, 2010 1:06 UTC (Sun) by jberkus (subscriber, #55561) [Link]
As an advisor to several software companies, I'll tell you why most companies who have copyright assignment policies have them: they don't actually want outside contributors. Really.
Open source is now the mainstream for software development. But that doesn't mean that companies who now feel obligated to open source their code in order to complete *like* the idea. They prefer to use open source as a distribution model only, and keep code development internal. It's less work for their engineering staff, less work for their lawyers, and they don't expect outside contributions to be useful anyway.
From my perspective, this is a fine attitude if a company is honest with itself. Where trouble develops is when a company wants to "keep its cake and eat it too", but having draconian copyright control by still having a program to "build its developer community". Since these two goals can never be brought into concordance (think Sun), the projects will be considered failures and the company will blame "the open source community" (whoever that is).
--Josh "10 ways to destroy your community" Berkus
|
|||||||||||||