On 8/22/2012 12:07 PM, Matt Shaver wrote: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 01:40:06 +0300 > "Alex Joni" <alex.j...@robcon.ro> wrote: > >> Last emc1 version was 1.2.0-rc1 iirc, >> you can still find the CVS tree for emc1 here: >> http://emc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/emc/emc/ > Thanks Alex! > > I've been doing some research into copyright law to determine if > Michael Haberler can use free software components (like 0MQ) that are > available only under licenses that may conflict with the licenses under > which Linuxcnc is made available. > > The situation is complicated and also not 100% knowable because the law > is either vague or silent with regard to important issues. For example, > the issue of what I would call "continuous creation" such as occurs in > a project like this where changes are made nearly every day, and the > actual copyrightable work will _never_ be finished, is not meaningfully > addressed in law. Another example is that a contribution to a work > which may establish a copyright interest for an author must be > "independently copyrightable", but this phrase is not clearly defined > and is subject to interpretation. > > However, after lots of reading I've come to some preliminary > conclusions: > > 1. Linuxcnc is a "collective work" which means, "a work, such > as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of > contributions, constituting separate and independent works in > themselves, are assembled into a collective whole". > > 2. This means that many parts of Linuxcnc, particularly those created > from scratch after the exit of NIST from the development process, have > known authors with indisputable copyright interests. These authors have > chosen to allow copying of their works subject to licenses of their own > choosing, mostly the GPL I think. In this category you would find > things like AXIS, the HAL system and its components, utilities like > stepconf, the beautiful documentation, the build system and > infrastructure, etc. The important issue is that these are > "independent works", that can stand on their own without the rest of > Linuxcnc. I would suggest that these parts be made _more_ independent > by such actions as packaging them separately so that they can be > installed individually, and also by eliminating installation > dependencies on, and inclusions (include, require, source, import, etc > statements) of (if at all possible), any code that is about to be > defined in the next paragraph (3) below. In short; create as many > "independent works" as possible with good copyright pedigrees, and > enforceable licenses. If any of these are also "joint works" (about to > be discussed at length), the authors should have a written agreement > that codifies their mutual agreement on licensing. > > 3. The remaining part of Linuxcnc is that part which originated at > NIST, and possibly elsewhere. This part itself is a "collective work", > consisting of the interpreter (Tom Kramer + many happy helpers), the > task planner, the motion controller, the I/O controller, rtapi, etc > (Fred Proctor, Will Shackelford, + many more happy helpers), NML (James > Albus, Fred Proctor, Will Shackelford, et al), and other parts with a > similar set of authors. > > A. In the beginning, this was mostly a “work of the United States > Government” which means, "a work prepared by an officer or employee > of the United States Government as part of that person’s official > duties". > > B. There may also be a few files that were provided by third > parties (like Servo To Go, or Delta Tau) to facilitate using their > products, or something provided by another early EMC user like GM. If > anything remains of these in the present day Linuxcnc, then their > copyright owners, and the license under which they are distributed > should be identified within the text of the file itself. > > C. According to U.S. copyright law, "Copyright protection under this > title is not available for any work of the United States Government, > but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and > holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or > otherwise." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/105) > > D. I'm not sure if 'not copyright protect-able' is the same as 'being > in the public domain'. I can't cite an explanation of this and it > seems too important to ignore. > > E. As far as I know, all the earliest non-governmental participants in > the EMC project, including GM's Pontiac Powertran Division, Boeing, > and me signed Cooperative Research And Development Agreements > (CRADAs) in which the government agreed to help with research if the > participants disclaimed any intellectual property interests, > including copyrights, in the results. I'll see if I can dig up my > copy of this just for completeness. > > F. At some time, after my involvement began, and probably before the > move to Sourceforge, I believe some part(s) of EMC became a "joint > work", which means "a work prepared by two or more authors with the > intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or > interdependent parts of a unitary whole". I believe it became a > "joint work" rather than a "derivative work" because the intent was > always collaboration on successive versions of a single work. For a > summary of the doctrine of "joint works" see: > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/joint/links/articles/lape.html > > G. Just FYI, a "derivative work" is "a work based upon one or more > preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, > dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound > recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other > form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work > consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or > other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of > authorship, is a "derivative work." I believe miniEMC2 is an example > of a "derivative work" based on EMC2. For an explanation of the > difference between "joint works" and "derivative works" see: > http://www.owe.com/legalities/legalities28.htm > > H. The above linked owe.com article states, "Under copyright law, > absent a written agreement otherwise, each joint author owns an > undivided interest in the whole work." ...
Am I correct that an undivided interest means that any of the joint authors can license the work to others without the permission of the other authors? If that is correct, any of the joint contributors can release users from the requirements of GPL. We clearly do NOT want that. For the future, we should somehow bind contributors with a written agreement preventing that from happening. Perhaps some sort of statement requiring acceptance as part of the commit process. Ken ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
