Thank you all for your attention on this question. My main concern (which you've addressed) is holding onto rights for the code I've written myself :- ).
Does the GPL (or any other license) address the question of _code acceptance policies_? Where specifically? Thanks again, --Erik O. --- "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:55:07PM -0800, Ian Lance > Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Erik Ostermueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > > > > I'm planning on releasing an open-source > product, > > > probably under the GNU license. > > > > > > Must I do anything in particular to insure that > I can > > > safely/legally violate the terms of the license > PRIOR > > > to the product release? > > > > Assuming that you hold the copyright on the > product, there is nothing > > you need to do. The GPL and similar copyleft > licenses place > > restrictions on people who receive copies of the > program: they specify > > what some random person is permitted to do with > the information which > > they have received. These licenses do not place > restrictions on the > > copyright holder. > > > > Of course this does not apply if you do not hold > the copyright on the > > program, or if you assign that copyright to > somebody else. The FSF > > often encourages GNU developers to assign > copyright on their programs > > to the FSF. However, you do not need to do this > in order to use the > > GPL yourself. > > Significantly, however, if you wish to accept and > incorporte code > contributions from others, you'll need to secure > rights to license > *those* works under terms of your chosing. > > Actually, you'll probably want to secure a copyright > statement of some > form for any code you source directly from a > contributor, if you're a > business. The FSF actually secures a grant of > copyright (all interest) > from the author of contributions, then licenses the > work back to the > author. The main argument for doing this is to > allow the FSF to pursue > infringement cases with greater authority, and > access to remedies not > otherwise available. Or so Eben will tell you (and > I generally believe > him). > > So: > > - You own your own work. Licensing terms don't > apply to you (you > don't have to grant yourself rights). > - You don't own other people's work (barring > conditions under which > you do -- works for hire, etc., and even then > you'll want to cover > contingencies). If you plan on doing funky > stuff with your license, > you'll likely want to get this in writing. > > Generally, this falls under the distinction of free > software _licensing_ > models (e.g.: what license(s) do I choose for my > work) and free > software _code acceptance policies_ (what terms do I > request for code I > plan to incorporate with my official release). It's > a distinction > that's been made fuzzy by an awful lot of loose > talk, misunderstanding, > and likely intentional deception. > > IANAL, TINLA, YADA. > > Peace. > > -- > Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ > What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? > Moderator, Free Software Law Discussion mailing > list: > http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
