Am 01.07.2011 16:59, schrieb Drasko DRASKOVIC:
> 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.
The wording is very crucial here.
For copyright transfer you need the paperwork.
Everything else is giving a license but the copyright still remains with
the original author (which is the most common case).
> 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).
All this is something that licenses are concerned about. And phrasing a
good license is very difficult. Trying to do this in just a few words
(as you suggested) opens up more wholes than it fills.
So if you are going down that path then for the sake of clear
regulations use one of the approved open source licenses and DO NOT
invent your own. Look at the OSI website for suitable and eventually GPL
compatible licenses:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html
And for all of them it is a mandatory requirement that the copyright
owner is clear and needs to be named. He/she is the one giving the
license (and the only one being able to do so).
> 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.
As I mentioned above, do not try to invent your own license. If we as
non-lawyers think the wording is fine and clear a license lawyer will
find for sure tons of wholes.
The OSI licenses have been double checked also for their compatibility.
Take one of those.
> Do we really need paperwork, or one statement : "I give you this code"
> is sufficient ?
You do not need paperwork if you do not want to do a copyright transfer
(in the previous mail there was a quote from the GNU project where this
was mentioned and which is why I explained that briefly - maybe I
misunderstood it).
Giving a license should be enough, you just need to find the right
license then.
>> 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 ?
Let's say, it should.
How many files are we talking about? This could be done with a simple
shell script.
We are playing in arena of law here and with law everything has to be as
precise as possible or it will be thrown back onto your face sooner or
later (believe me, I have been there and it did hurt ;)
>> 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 ?
Well, as soon as you put anything in there it is "official". So in this
sense there is no "real official". You can put anything in there "If you
use this software you owe me twenty litres of beer - daily". This would
be perfectly legal and fine but completely impractical.
But for the sake of simplicity and also for others being able to judge
the license you have chosen you should definitely choose one that is
known and common so that people know what they have to obey to or which
rights they have and which they do not have.
>> 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.
This is for sure true. But the question is what happens "backwards" with
the code that was once contributed or what happens if the license
changes in the contributed code?
The GPL e.g. does not rule backward - the code that was contributed at
stage A becoming GPL in stage B does not automatically get GPL backwards
in stage A. This is what dual licensing does. Any derived work from
stage B onward will always be GPL no matter what the author later on
might choose as license for the original code. This is waht the GPL
tries to assure.
Mixing licenses is a different story though. If you contribute to a
GPLed project under a license compatible with the GPL then the result is
in its completeness GPL but the "other license" file remains under that
license too - again a case of dual licensing. So the derived work (i.e.
the whole package) is then covered under the GPL but the individual file
can still be reused under that "other license".
At least this is what I know...
>> 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...
;)
It is a complex one and one that is equally annoying as writing
documentation ;) But when it comes to a license dispute you will be so
happy that you have chosen a tested and accepted license.
> BR,
> Drasko
Cheers
nils
--
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
