I would like to propose the following clarifications to the license and copyright statements of the files residing on the Open Graphics SVN server (https://svn.suug.ch/repos/opengraphics/main/):
1) Add the full dual-licensing explanation and a line stating Copyright (c) Traversal Technology to all the files. 2) Make it automatic: Implement a script that checks whether newly committed files contain the full dual-licensing explanation. If they dont, SVN should refuse to commit the change. This will force contributors to keep the dual-licensing explanation intact. 3) Change the phrase GPL 2.0 or newer in the dual-licensing explanation to the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. 4) Rephrase point (6) of the dual-licensing explanation as follows: It is the responsibility of the submitter of a Modification to ensure that they have the right to submit the Modification and that they have all the necessary permissions (including without limitation, patents and copyrights) from any other contributors or third parties. 5) Add an additional (9th) point to the dual-licensing explanation: The submitter of a Modification forfeits the right to any patents covered by This Work and pledges to not enforce any patents covered by This Work. 6) Rephrase point (8) of the dual-licensing explanation as follows: The submitter of a Modification assigns copyright of the Modification to Traversal Technology. Depending on your local laws, you may be able to assign joint copyright to Traversal Technology and yourself. Alternatively, you may need to assign copyright exclusively to Traversal Technology. Assigning joint copyright to Traversal Technology and yourself is preferable because it will allow you to make unrestricted use of your work in the future. 7) Add an additional (10th) point to the dual-licensing explanation: At your discretion, you are encouraged to add comments to the "Contributions" section of this Work, indicating the nature of your Modification. ---------------------------------- Explanation of the clarifications ---------------------------------- The current version of the dual-licensing explanation can be found at: https://svn.suug.ch/repos/opengraphics/main/trunk/new_model/ogmodel.cpp Clarification 1: Every file must contain the full dual-licensing explanation in order to ensure that the dual-licensing explanation legally applies to that file. And by this I don't mean a skimpy "see the COPYING file" type statement. The developer of Konsole is having a heck of a time enforcing the GPL against violators because he failed to include the copyright and licensing statement in each file, instead mistakenly relying on a COPYING file in an ever-changing "upper directory": http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/09/29/164207 Clarification 2: It has got to be perfectly clear that by submitting a modification to the SVN server, contributors are assigning the copyright of that modification to Traversal. Currently, a contributor can claim that he didn't assign copyright to Traversal because the file he is modifying has no such assignment statement. The contributor can therefore sue Traversal Technology if it tries to dual-license the code. It is technically possible with SVN to check that the dual-licensing explanation is intact after every commit. See Precommit Hook Scripts: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.create.html#svn.reposadmin.create.hooks Clarification 3: Right now there are some files that contain absolutely no license, or maybe just a short reference to "GPL". This three-letter abbreviation can be shorthand for many things, and we need to avoid this ambiguity by being as specific as possible. Clarification 4: The original phrase This pertains to both patents and copyrights was unclear. Clarification 5: Without this clarification, proprietary graphics vendors and anyone else who wishes to harm the Open Graphics Project, could try sneak patented technology into the Open Graphics design and then sue us out of existence. Think SCO with patents. Clarification 6: Make it clear that Traversal Technology must have the copyright. Whether or not the original owner also gets to keep the copyright is a secondary concern. I removed the phrase you may be able to retain copyright while allowing Traversal Technology unrestricted use since very few jurisdictions (if any) prevent people from assigning copyrights. Clarification 7: This is merely a suggestion and doesnt fit with any of the other points. ---------------------------------- Conclusion ---------------------------------- When going up against the billion-dollar proprietary graphics industry, legal weaknesses such as present in the current Open Graphics dual-licensing explanation will undoubtedly be used against us. I think the clarifications suggested here will help protect the project from law suits. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Mark _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
