Koha community squares off against commercial fork [LWN.net]

Koha community squares off against commercial fork

Posted May 5, 2010 23:46 UTC (Wed) by liw (subscriber, #6379)
Parent article: Koha community squares off against commercial fork

A couple of minor corrections:

* PTFS requested individual Koha community members to sign NDAs, but this was before the conference call started getting organized. The NDAs were not related to the conference call.

* It is my understanding that PTFS provides a hosted service, and does not distribute any code to the customer. I don't think GPL version 2 requires them to give out source code in this scenario.

to post comments

Koha community squares off against commercial fork

Posted May 6, 2010 0:39 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (3 responses)

They appear to have a couple problems, IMO anyone accessing it remotely has been provided the software and should be provided the code, but that's up to the courts to decide I imagine.

But the major fatal flaw I see is the original development was done as contract work. It would be governed by NZ law but under US law such an arrangement would mean that the original Library would be the owner of the code, not the contracted developer. As such, purchasing the assets of the developer wouldn't transfer code or name rights to the buyer.

Koha community squares off against commercial fork

Posted May 6, 2010 4:01 UTC (Thu) by csawtell (guest, #986) [Link] (2 responses)

I am not a provider of legal counsel, but as I understand it, the ownership of computer code written within the New Zealand jurisdiction is simple. In the absence of any over-riding contractual agreements, any progress payments made to the program author by the commissioning entity gives the entity teh entire ownership rights to the code, on the other hand if the author of the code is not paid anything until the acceptance of the code then the ownership rights remain with the author.

Here in NZ it is not legal to use a dictionary word as a trade-mark. The word 'koha' is a perfectly good Maori - one of two official languages - word, and as such would not be available for registration as a trade mark within Aoteroa - New Zealand.

It is also not legal to describe an item for sale in a way which fails to describe it accurately. It would therefore be open to considerable debate as to whether it is acceptable to name something as 'koha' and then charge a set fee for it, because 'koha' is, by its very meaning and nature, a contribution to a communal activity which conforms to the custom of 'Unto each according to his need, and from each according to his ability'.

Koha community squares off against commercial fork

Posted May 6, 2010 9:53 UTC (Thu) by ranginui (guest, #65927) [Link]

Koha has been trademarked in various contexts in NZ already. We thought the same as you, but no, It can be trademarked.

A selection of Koha trademarks in NZ
Bell tea & coffee hold a Trademark on Koha - in relation to tea; coffee; tea and coffee substitutes; preparations for beverages
Tohu Wines have Koha, in relation to alcoholic beverages (except beers); wines; fortified wines
KOHA PRODUCTS N Z LTD have a TM on Koha in relation to cosmetic preparations; soaps; perfumes; lotions; face creams; eye creams; make-up; hair care preparations; toiletries; essential oils for cosmetic and perfumery use; essential oils for personal use

I agree with you that it shouldn't be trademarkable, but it is.

Koha community squares off against commercial fork

Posted May 6, 2010 16:51 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

I would be interesting to me to find out if someone has explored the contract HLT had with Katipo and find out if in fact HLT didn't retain rights to the code. It would appear one of the contract clauses that the code be released as FOSS would imply under the law that HLT retained copyright as a work for hire product.

If it's true that HLT retained copyright they could simply hand it off to the FSF and things could get very interesting as all the companies succeeding Kapito in ownership would appear to have violated those copyrights and ultimately the surviving entity in interest would be liable for those violations. Have any of the original or current Koha Developers explored the contract that originally created Koha to see if HLT retained copyright?