OpenOffice.org moving to LGPLv3
| From: | Louis Suarez-Potts <Louis.Suarez-Potts-AT-Sun.COM> | |
| To: | announce-AT-openoffice.org | |
| Subject: | New License and Contributor Agreement | |
| Date: | Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:01:45 -0500 | |
| Message-ID: | <E56DC8E2-96AD-4CD7-B1B3-4B7A98449A0C@Sun.COM> |
All, Some interesting news. Summary ======== * The license for code is changing from the early LGPL v 2.1 to 3.0 effective the Beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0. (The actual date of this beta has not been finalized.) * The Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA) is being replaced by the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). This change is effective immediately with this announcement. Background ========== Late last year, there was a discussion about the implications of the ratification of GPLv3 or LGPLv3 for OpenOffice.org among the OpenOffice.org project leads. The leads were generally in favour of adopting the updated licenses. The outcome of this and other discussions is that Sun is changing the license for the OpenOffice.org codebase to the more flexible and protective LGPL v3 [0], effective with the beta of OpenOffice.org 3.0 which is due later this year. This change is supported by the OpenOffice.org Community Council. This move forward is the natural evolutionary step to take for a codebase using a license from the FSF license family. The drafting process for the license involved substantial FOSS community input and we will benefit from this work. In particular, the new license includes additional protections for the community against software patents. OpenOffice.org will continue using the LGPL so as to minimize the disruption to our community and expanding ecosystem, which evolved around the LGPL codebase. The LGPL grants flexibility to a broad range of users and developers, while still ensuring that modifications to the code are contributed back to the community. The new license is a major reason to exchange the Joint Copyright Assignment(JCA) with the Sun Contributor Agreement(SCA) [1]. For OpenOffice.org there will be an addendum, which accommodates developers of the core OOo codebase and of non-core extensions through different contribution models. It does not change the fact that contributions to the product packaged as OpenOffice.org require an SCA. The addendum enables OpenOffice.org to more easily host the source code of extensions, and thus promotes collaboration with other interested parties on the respective extension in a familiar environment. There is similar flexibility for documentation. The creation of the related contribution guidelines is in progress. A large number of GPL/LGPL projects have already moved to v3 [2]. For OpenOffice.org the next major release is the right time to change. Preparations will start immediately, so that we can publish OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta under LGPLv3. The SCA, including the OpenOffice.org addendum, will be published on the OpenOffice.org site together with a FAQ and a pointer to the Sun SCA FAQ [3]. It comes into effect with this announcement. See also our FAQ on licensing. [4]. A copy of this announcement can be found at http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/newlicense2008.html . Regards, Louis Suarez-Potts Community Manager OpenOffice.org Sun Microsystems, Inc. [0] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html [1] http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sca.pdf [2] http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp [3] http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreem... [4] http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
Posted Mar 7, 2008 19:45 UTC (Fri)
by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Mar 7, 2008 20:46 UTC (Fri)
by Sutoka (guest, #43890)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Mar 7, 2008 21:14 UTC (Fri)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
Posted Mar 7, 2008 23:02 UTC (Fri)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 8, 2008 0:59 UTC (Sat)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
The FSF most certainly does require assigning copyrights to them for any substantial modifications to all GNU projects.
Not every set of files under GPL is a "GNU project"...
Posted Mar 8, 2008 1:32 UTC (Sat)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link]
GNU Telephony, for example, has its sources copyrighted by David Sugar, Open Source Telecom Corp, etc., to name a few. No where does the FSF require copyright assignment for this project.
Contributions need to be under the same license as the rest of the project (GPL v2, v3, etc.) but that is not copyright assignment.
Posted Mar 11, 2008 5:30 UTC (Tue)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 11, 2008 5:55 UTC (Tue)
by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)
[Link]
Posted Mar 21, 2008 10:11 UTC (Fri)
by anton (subscriber, #25547)
[Link]
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
I never noticed this before, but it seems the JCA and now SCA let you share copyright with
Sun, instead of assigning over all of your rights. Is this standard in FOSS projects? AFAIK
the FSF requires complete assignment to them, with the rationale that only as the sole owners
can they enforce the GPL in court if necessary. Why, then, is Sun not concerned by that?
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
In my experience, most* FOSS projects do not require transfer (or sharing)
of copyright control. With the exception of GNU projects, I'm pretty sure
transfer/sharing is more so the exception rather than the rule, and may
not be _that_ needed for enforcement (mostly just for changing the license
easily?)
* I haven't really looked closely, pretty sure most of the common bigger
FOSS projects like the Linux kernel, KDE, and lots of GNOME applications
don't require any copyright magic. I think BusyBox doesn't do any sort of
copyright pooling and it looks like it hasn't stopped them from enforcing
their license**
** http://lwn.net/Articles/272041/
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
There are lots of different projects that require copyright transfer in order to contribute.
MySQL is another example of a project that requires copyright transfer.
Another example is Apache foundation asks for copyright assignments.
There are a variety or reasons why you'd want copyright assignment.
A couple examples from GNU include that you don't have to worry about legal representation..
the only people that can go after license violations are the ones that own the copyrights. Of
course GNU offshoots like the Freedom law foundation have made it easier for independant
programmers to get that sort of representation.
Another example is if you want to have more licensing flexibility. GNU will let individuals or
projects have special exceptions for code they want to use from GNU software.. Like Gnash is
based on public domain-licensed software and if the original author wanted code back they
would be willing to do it. In this way GNU is often much less licensing-nazi-ish then they
seem at first blush. It's much easier for people to negotiate with them then, say, Apache
foundation for licensing compatibility issues.
People like MySQL or Trolltech will have proprietary versions of their software available for
people that do not want to abide by the terms of the GPL for whatever reason.
Of course with out the copyright assignment a project can track down the original programmer
and get special exceptions, but that is a lot more tougher and most people don't want to deal
with that on a individual basis.
This seems to be what Sun is after. They want to be able to change licensing terms to suite
customers or third party software company's demands. This is normal stuff and I don't think is
something that is worth being alarmed about.
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
Some GNU projects (mainly the core ones) require copyright assignment. Many other GNU
projects do not require assignment at all.
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
I know what I talk about. I am a GNU maintainer. But I will use a large GNU project as an example.
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
While the FSF copyright assignment form may not use the words "joint copyright", it does
include an offer to give you a license to your contributions (note that this does not include
other people's contributions) under non-restrictive terms. So you end up with pretty much the
same rights as if you'd signed a joint copyright agreement.
As for the other side of the contract, with the OOo agreement Sun can essentially do whatever
they want with the code (and since they hold joint copyright on everyone's code they aren't
restricted by LGPL). With the FSF agreements, there is a clause requiring the Foundation to
distribute the work under a free software license.
This means that if the FSF tried to distribute my code under a proprietary license the
assignment agreement would be void and they'd be infringing my copyright. In contrast, Sun is
actively using their privileged position w.r.t. OpenOffice to sell StarOffice. As a
contributor, I know which agreement I'd prefer to sign.
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
I agree with your sentiments, I would in general prefer the FSF way as well. Just a minor
addition, though, regarding
> With the FSF agreements, there is a clause requiring the Foundation to
> distribute the work under a free software license.
The Sun agreement has the same type of clause. That is, both are committed to releasing the
project under a FOSS license. Sun however, in *addition*, releases it under a proprietary
license.
Copyright Assignment / Sharing
AFAIK the FSF requires complete assignment to them
When the project becomes a GNU project, the copyright holders can
choose whether they want to transfer copyright to the FSF, or whether
they want to keep it. We (the Gforth project)
chose to transfer the copyright, because the FSF is better equiped to
legally defend the freedom of the software. If the copyright is
transferred to the FSF, they ask all further contributors for a
copyright assignment or a copyright disclaimer (which puts the
contribution in the public domain).