Hi! Am 01.07.2011 14:51, schrieb Drasko DRASKOVIC: > Does it have to have somekig of copyright notice ? Here > (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Licensing/Print_Version) I can see > : > Nowadays, copyright law does not require formalities. The author does > not need to publish, register, pay a registration fee of any kind, nor > attach a copyright notice to his/her/its work, for the copyright to > take effect. Copyright is automatically applied to a work once it is > created [9] and the creator of the work automatically becomes the > copyright holder.
This is of course right and is the root-cause of all misery ;) Say you include something in good faith that has no explicit boilerplate attached, no license nor author. Including it into your work is in the first place correct and legal. You do not know any better. The problem is though that the copyright owner did not give you a perpetual license. So what can happen is that at some later point in time the very same author can appear at your door, claim his work and re-license it - probably under a very restrictive license. This is his very right since he/she is the copyright owner. This is also the very same reason why dual licensing (free and GPL AND commercial and closed) is possible on the very same code. The copyright owner can choose the license on a case by case level. Addressing this issue is also one of the goals of open source license like the GPL - to give the user of the code the perpetual security that the license (and usage terms) will not change any more once you got the code. > Based on this, do we need at least some king of copyright notice that > transfers the rights (which inherently belong to author, if not stated > otherwise) ? > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices A copyright transfer is a very ugly thing and should be the last resort since it requires real paperwork - a boilerplate text inside the code is legally not enough for this. The GNU project usually requires this for parts that shall become GNU projects so that the GNU foundation can at all times also change the license on its own without having to consult with the copyrights owners again. What you will want is rather a) a statement of authorship and b) a license statement by this author. If the author chooses a license like the GPL then this will give you the perpetual right to use this code in its current state under all freedoms and restriction of the GPL (as they are known) at all times. If you do not have that, as mentioned above, you have the risk that at some later point the author might claim rights that you can not fulfil. PS: I am not a copyright lawyer - just for completeness ;) So do not take my rant for granted, this is just my personal view from personal experience and many discussions. Cheers nils > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Nils Faerber > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just my $0.05 from experience... >> >> Am 01.07.2011 07:28, schrieb Øyvind Harboe: >>> Is there a GPL wiz in the house? >>> >>> Can we accept anonymous contributions just like that? >>> >>> I know there are anonymous contributions in Linux. >> >> The major issue with such contributions is when it comes to a dispute. >> If you do not have a clear copyright holder and statement with the >> original patch then anything can happen later. >> The original author might suddenly pop up, provide proof the he/she is >> the author and claim rights to this code/patch that are incompatible >> with the project or other code it was included into. >> This can cause *major* pain. So before accepting patches it is simply a >> wise guideline to always require clear authorship and license before >> incorporating third party code, no matter what size or significance. >> Almost any line of code can break your code/license when it comes to >> dispute (look at the many law suites from the past and current, e.g. SCO >> vs. Linux, Oracle vs. Android). >> >> Cheers >> nils >> >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Uhler, Richard <[email protected]> >>> Date: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:24 AM >>> Subject: RE: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Implementation of a remote >>> bitbang jtag driver >>> To: Øyvind Harboe <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "[email protected]" >>> <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been instructed we can only make the contribution if no >>> explicit copyright claim is required. Is that acceptable? >>> >>> Richard >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Øyvind Harboe [[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:42 AM >>> To: Uhler, Richard >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Implementation of a remote >>> bitbang jtag driver >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> some comments: >>> >>> - new files, except for config and macro files, must have the >>> gpl 2 or later license header and it must state the copyright >>> holder(you in this case). >>> - the option should be --enable-remote-bitbang, not --enable-remote_bitbang >>> to be more consistent with other options. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Øyvind Harboe - Can Zylin Consulting help on your project? -- kernel concepts GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-12 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 D-57072 Siegen Mob: +49-176-21024535 http://www.kernelconcepts.de _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
