| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in futureCopyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in futurePosted Sep 26, 2003 18:30 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940)In reply to: Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future by dwalters Parent article: IBM Files New Claims Against SCO in Linux Case (Dow Jones)
Incorrect.
(Log in to post comments)
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:40 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You are confusing putting something under the GPL with assignment of copyright.Assigning a copyright means giving another person or legal entity the rights granted under copyright law. It is true that the FSF has a copyright assignment form which also grants most of those rights back to the author. So the original author can use the work however they want including putting it under a different license than the GPL. But that is not the same as being the copyright holder. The question is, does the assignment form somehow let the original author still file copyright infrigement lawsuits? If so how?
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:48 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] It is just a matter of whether whether or not the person or corporation inquestion is in violation of the GPL. If they are in violation of the GPL then they have lost the right to distribut the code and continuation of distributing the code is against 'copyright law'. The GPL uses copyright law. Since the author's still retain the right of that code and that copyright, they have the right to pursue damages for the violation of the GPL. GPL is just an extension of the already existing Copyright system. GPL is just a contract that dictates distribution and modification rights. It does not change ownership of copyrights.
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 20:09 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I completely agree with you about the GPL. We are in violent agreement.But what we were talking about a few posts earlier was not putting code The only reason I brought it up is that under US law (to my knowledge and The implication was that the FSF should have been filing the lawsuit not There are multiple reasons it didn't happen this way, and I was just curious which one it was: a) Maybe IBM didn't transfer all of their kernel changes to the FSF
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:47 UTC (Fri) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] The point is that for some of their code they released it under the GPL and assigned the copyright to the FSF. Nobody is suggesting that you must assign your copyright when you GPL. However you can choose to assign it to another person or organisation. Why would you do that? Because that other organisation may be in a much better position to defend your code than you are, they may already have expert lawyers and people to work full time on the case, whereas you may have a day job and a mortgage. The FSF can/will only defend code that has been assigned to them. So it makes sense to do this, unless you have plans to license your code under another license too. The "funny" thing here is that IBM is probably much better able to defend their code than the FSF so perhaps they should GPL but not assign to the FSF in future, or better still, GPL, assign and give big wodges of cash to the FSF.
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:48 UTC (Fri) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] IncorrectThat's a bit broad. ;-) The poster you're responding to was talking about copyright assignments. I don't think anyone here is saying that by licensing your own code under the GPL, you lose rights to your own code. It is only by transferring the actual copyrights (and in the process, producing a sometimes useful paper trail) that you no longer 'own' the code. In those cases, you cannot file an infringment claim against anyone for the code you no longer own. Only the new owner can. But this is completely separate from the GPL. All that matters, though, is that it's clear that IBM has not, in fact, transferred copyrights of all of its Linux contributions to the FSF. Someone else said that it was only its contributions to the toolchain (S/390?) that have been assigned to the FSF. What's clear is that at least some code within the Linux kernel is IBM owned (copyrighted) and that's what the company is suing SCO over in this case. I'm sure that Bruce Perens and others in the FLOSS world will agree with me here that this highly preferable to IBM's previous countersuit using patents as a weapon. With this and its response to HP's Linux indemnification ploy, IBM just earn huge points in my book for really getting Free Software.
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 19:06 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] I do see your point as well, mine is just the as of that quote from groklaw above. I see it that even though you have assigned your copyright to FSF that in the event of breach of contract (GPL) that the auther may still pursue damages. Which I was replying to , "When they do that, they are no longer the legal owners of that work, so they can't file a misappropriation complaint for such code."From what groklaw stated, the author's do not lose that copyright. "Releasing software under the GPL is not the same as releasing it into the public domain. Authors retain their copyrights to software licensed under the GPL. Even when authors assign their copyrights to someone else, such as to the Free Software Foundation, the copyrights remain valid, but with the new owner. Therefore, subsequent to termination of your permissions under the GPL, you are in the unhappy position of violating the copyrights of the software authors, if you continue to distribute their software. Under copyright law, you are not allowed to distribute at all without their permission -- and they have chosen to grant that permission only by means of the GPL."
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 20:15 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Yes, but the text you are quoting is not talking about the situation you are talking about. It is talking about using the GPL. SCO had claimedthat Linux people were saying that the GPL forced the author to assign copyrights. It doesn't. But of course we weren't saying the GPL did that either. SCO was confused about the requirements of the GPL, or at least pretended The part of the Groklaw quote that does talk about assignments is only
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 27, 2003 0:13 UTC (Sat) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] The Groklaw quote you mentioned: is not 100% correct. More accurately, I believe it should read: Of course, most of the time, the author and the copyright holder are one and the same person.
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future Posted Sep 26, 2003 20:28 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] > Incorrect. I don't believe anything I said was incorrect. I believe I fully understand the GPL (well, at least I scored full marks on the GNU's Free Software Licensing Quiz :-), and I think I have a good grasp of copyright issues. An author can (and many have) assign the copyright ownership of any work to another person or legal entity (such as the FSF). When you do this, you've essentially transferred all rights under copyright law to the recipient. The point is that when a work is released under the GPL, it is just as free (as in freedom), and will always remain free, whoever holds the copyright. However, it's only the legal copyright owner (not necessarily the same as the original author) who has rights under copyright law to sue infringers.
|
|
||||||||||||