Re: Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy

Chris H wrote:
In message <49e48e95$0$24766$8404b019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Brown
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
SCO tried to claim that they owned the copyrights to some code, which
others had released under the GPL - they claimed that since they owned
the code, others (IBM in particular) had no right to distribute it
under the GPL. As is well known, there were two huge holes in their
case - first, they didn't own the copyrights, and secondly, they
distributed the code under the GPL themselves.

I thought that this was just an MS inspired bit of FUD to try and stop
Linux?


It was MS sponsored (since it was "good" FUD against Linux), but I think it was SCO's new boss's idea.

Being sure of the copyright ownership is, as you say, important to
avoid this sort of thing. But assigning the copyrights to the FSF
doesn't change the legal position - it just makes it a little easier in
court since there are fewer people involved. In particular, if I write
some code which you take and change the copyright notice, then release
as GPL, it doesn't really matter if you transfer copyright to the FSF
before or after it is released as GPL. In the first case, I claim you
didn't have the right to release it as GPL, in the second case, I claim
the FSF doesn't have that right (and also that you didn't have the
right to transfer copyright ownership).

Now that is logical and the argument many employers could probably use.
However as soon as the lawyers get involved it becomes a complete
quagmire... a very expensive one at that.

This is probably why it is rarely done. Also to do it against Open
Source would probably open up to many other problems.


Of course, the other possibility for why it is rarely done is that valuable copyrighted code rarely ends up in serious open source projects without the owner's permission - major open source projects are very careful about who contributes and where the code comes from.

I'm sure there are lots of cases of sections of copyrighted code ending up in open source code under a different license (the typical example being an extract from a book or website), but only in rare cases is it worth pursuing that sort of infringement.

And for balance, there is no difference here between closed-source code and open source code - let he who has not copied from a book into their code without checking the license throw the first stone. Open source simply makes it easier to see the code.

The way to protect against this sort of thing is to be very sure of
where the code comes from.

Agreed.

FSF have always been very careful, as have the Linux kernel developers
(except perhaps in the early days). Having everything available in
public, along with all the source code repositories, mailing list
archives, etc., makes it easy to check the history of the
contributions.

Quite so. However the problem is in the case I was suggesting is that
those actually doing the work may not be able to put it into the public
domain or GPL without, in theory, company permission.


Most of the major gcc contributors are paid to contribute to gcc - they work for companies like Intel, Red Hat, IBM, Freescale, Code Sourcery, etc. It's part of their job. The same applies, more or less, to many major open source projects.

For those with other programming jobs, it makes sense to clarify the position with your employer before contributing to open source projects (or doing any other sort of programming). Only a truly foolish employer would object (assuming, of course, that the free-time programming did not compete with the employer, and that it does not in other ways affect his job).

Unless the employer can reasonably claim disloyalty in the employee, he'd have a very hard job trying to get a court's backing in any claims over copyright ownership. He might stand a good chance if the employee was making money from the extra programming, but not if he is giving the code away as open source.

However, IANAL, and it is best to get permission in advance rather than fight about it later.

Of course, exactly the same thing applies to closed source licenses -
it's just that disagreements about ownership are harder to discover
(you can't just read your competitor's source code to see if he has
copied from you), and often settled behind closed doors.

It's never happened it says here on this out of court settlement
agreement :-)

Also note that once code is released under the GPL, the owner cannot
"close the source". If they release version 1.00 under the GPL, they
can start using a closed license for 1.01 (or for a re-release of
1.00), but they can never take away the GPL'ed 1.00 from anyone.

Quite so otherwise the whole thing becomes unworkable.


In fact, this is the whole concept behind the GPL.

Others can then freely fork the project and continue it under the GPL
(they can't change the license, since they don't own the copyright),
with a possible name change to avoid trademark issues. This has
happened with many projects.

So the owner can fork of from V1.0 GPL and make V1.1 closed etc and
anyone else can take V1.0 GPL and make an open V1.* GPL of their own
which will not be the same as the closed versions..


Correct.

This is the point of the GPL. It means that a GPL project can only die through lack of interest - not because the owner decides to stop making or selling the code. It means that once the code is released, it will always be available as long as someone has a copy. And it also means that the code in question can be modified or re-used regardless of the copyright owner's wishes. The copyright owner will often own trademarks on the name and logo, which will need to be changed by anyone distributing the code, but that's not a big deal.

Consider embedded compilers as an example. We know that ByteCraft puts a lot of effort into making sure that customers can get old versions of their software if needed. But supposing IAR makes a hostile takeover of ByteCraft, fires Walter Banks, and kills off ByteCraft's 6808 compiler tools because they compete with IAR's own tools. An old user of ByteCraft's 6808 compiler then wants to get an extra license for their old version - IAR refuses. Another user has found a bug, and would like ByteCraft to fix it and give or sell them an update - again, IAR refuses. Customers are stuck, despite ByteCraft's best intentions, and no matter how much money the customer is willing to pay.

For comparison, supposing IAR buys the FSF and now owns the copyrights of gcc. They stop distributing gcc sources, and re-license everything with a proprietary license and sell the binaries. The next week you'd find the website fcc.sourceforge.net hosting the "free compiler collection" tools based on the last GPL'ed gcc sources with a name change. And as an avr-gcc user, even if no one else worked on the gcc source, I'd still be able to modify it and improve it myself. If I didn't have the expertise (or the time!), I could pay someone else to do it.

*That* is the protection and insurance you get from open source software, that you cannot get from closed source software. The two scenarios above are highly unlikely, but they are possible - and similar things have happened with other pieces of software.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FC4 or FC5
    ... Reread the Qt license, Peter. ... your source code to the open source community in accordance with the ... GPL when your application is distributed." ... I'll BUY OpenSource software ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: GUI goodness for your Mouse and Keyboard programming
    ... source and non open source code in ways that aren't infringing on the ... orignial open source license. ... Note that they mention the GPL. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: TCP/ IP, USB stacks and ThreadX
    ... copyright laws to enforce its license, which restricts your use of the GPL'ed code and generated binaries - you are obliged to provide the source code of all code directly linked with the GPL'ed code, under the same GPL license. ... BTW the license for the source code in question is less than one page. ... People complain publicly about the GPL, because it can make a difference - complaints have helped shape the GPL, and influence the choice of licence in open source projects. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Book on Assembly
    ... Aside from being "not-GPL" can you name a single reason ... you don't want to use his license? ... The GPL. ... Look up what "open source" means sometime. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Using hobby source code in your job ?
    ... >>the idea that at any time, for any reason, a past, present or future employer ... In the case that the copyright holder licenses the code under the GPL, ... the copyright holder is absolutely free to license the same code under ...
    (comp.lang.c)