On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Nils Faerber <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
I do not know what we mean exactly by "copyright transfer". I meant some header notice, giving anyone right to use. distribute, etc... the code, and permits derived work. Also, I think that it should *must* have the notice to the user that it comes without any warranties (I think that some laws absolutely demand this). What I want to say, can someone who want to donate code to OpenOCD, but not put it in GPL licence then note in the notice explicitly that it gives the code and permits the users to keep it and modify it ? Would this be sufficient that we can keep this code forever, and prevent author to ever demand his code to be closed, or non distributable, or similar. Do we really need paperwork, or one statement : "I give you this code" is sufficient ? > What you will want is rather a) a statement of authorship Author can not do differently than state that he holds the authorship on the code. But do every file really needs this ? > and b) a > license statement by this author. Must it be some official licence, or "I give you this code forever (to distribute, modify, etc.)" would be sufficient ? > 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. Fro my point of view mixing licences can get complicated. IMHO GPL demands that all derived work remains GPL. Would linking with this code donated under FOO or BAR licence would be considered derived work ? If yes, then you must distribute it under GPL. > 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. Me even less. But I think that any discussion on this subject is beneficial for the project... BR, Drasko _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
