Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Hi Arnulf, I'm just catching up on my email and noticed your renewal of this thread. If OSGeo is to go down the route of getting IP into one organisation, it would be good to see the IP protected in a regime that is not subject to software patents and can offer some protection against them. That doesn't really offer much scope at this stage (...and I'm not an expert in this area). ...perhaps somewhere in the EU? Bruce -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2010 5:44 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership Cleaning up an older thread... From what I gather from the lists there seems to be no broad opinion in favor of making projects move their copyright under the hood of OSGeo. With the recent discussion of potential export restriction enforcement by incorporated organizations incorporated in USA the the need for a more global organization seems to be higher. I am frankly at a loss at where such an organization would be incorporated and what it could look like but if it existed I would very much like to support it. If anyone has a great idea what a truly global OSGeo should look like please speak up. We should spend some thought on copyright every time we admit and evaluate projects in incubation. My personal experience shows that having the copyright of Open Source projects completely under the hood of a community owned organization is a good thing. Everything else is messy. The messy bit only shows when things go wrong so lets keep fingers crossed and as long as nothing happens we'll all be fine. Best regards, Arnulf. On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:34 +, Chris Puttick wrote: The other issue with assigning code copyrights to a US-based organisation is a simple one. The US has the strongest software patent machine and the most supportive courts (if you pick your state carefully ;) ). As FOSSGIS applications bite ever harder into the profits of the dominant player(s), the chance of the game being changed to a legal one rather than a sales and marketing one is pretty high; a fight OSGeo couldn't afford to be in. Chris - Landon Blake lbl...@ksninc.com wrote: One example of the restrictions Luis is talking about is the prohibition against distributing certain cryptographic software outside of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography Don't know that OSGeo would bump into that, but it is one example of a US specific restriction on organizations involved in software development. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Luis W. Sevilla Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- http://arnulf.us Exploring Space, Time and Mind ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
On 14 February 2010 22:44, Brian Russo br...@beruna.org wrote: Can you give an example of some osgeo software that is a concern for US export controls? Well this topic is under discussion on the board (AFAIK) but, the wiki page says: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/US_Export_Restrictions All of our products are developed via online collaboration in public forums and distributed from distributed servers some within the territory of the United States of America. Therefore, U.S. export laws and regulations apply to our distributions and remain in force as products and technology are re-exported to different parties and places around the world As the wiki page states, it's more or less the same policy used by the Apache Foundation. I'm having trouble thinking of any, since encryption isn't really a big factor in most GIS software. Even if it is a component of the software, as long as those encryption components reside outside of it in openssl or similar - while it is an inconvenience - it can be handled the same way this matter has been for years. Distribute/produce the software inside the US without the encryption - and then foreigners can obtain openssl from outside the US.. compile the software, etc. There are probably some GIS software packages that would fall under the EAR, but since they meet the GSN requirements for being 'generally available to the public', they are exempted 15 CFR §734.7(b). Likewise even if there was a non-encryption product that somewhere fell under ITAR, it is also exempt 22 CFR §125.1(a) since open source software is in what ITAR considers accessibility in the public domain. There's still of course the matter of places like North Korea/other embargoed nations, but unless you're actively initiating such specific transfers then there's no concern since the EAR language that I'm aware of refers to 'downloading or causing the downloading...'. I don't know what EAR means on this context (not talking about EJBs, right?) but as it seems that your knowledge on this field is far better than mine, can you confirm if is or not a law infringement of the OSGeo Foundation to let Cuban or North Korean people to download any product from OSGeo stack*? The wiki text I've copied says the contrary, isn't it? * from its own servers like GDAL or hosted outside like Geonetwor, Geoserver, etc. Best -- Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas Ingeniero en Geodesia y Cartografía http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jorge_Sanz ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
EAR is the Export Administration Regulations, maintained by the Bureau of Industry Security within the US Department of Commerce. Well I'm no lawyer so I cannot give legal advice nor confirm on this matter. I do know that 740.13(e)(6) says that posting encryption source code and object code online doesn't invoke the know your customer obligations nor constitute knowledge of export, etc. A simple solution may be to just mirror what Kerberos did and put up a bunch of disclaimers - http://web.mit.edu/Kerberos/dist/index.html Anecdotally, the fact that Mozilla got a 'no-violation' letter when it's known that Firefox has been exported to Iran via Mozilla's servers is interesting (though not a legal precedent). I suggest contacting EFF or a similar group and asking their lawyers. - bri On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas js...@osgeo.org wrote: On 14 February 2010 22:44, Brian Russo br...@beruna.org wrote: I'm having trouble thinking of any, since encryption isn't really a big factor in most GIS software. Even if it is a component of the software, as long as those encryption components reside outside of it in openssl or similar - while it is an inconvenience - it can be handled the same way this matter has been for years. Distribute/produce the software inside the US without the encryption - and then foreigners can obtain openssl from outside the US.. compile the software, etc. There are probably some GIS software packages that would fall under the EAR, but since they meet the GSN requirements for being 'generally available to the public', they are exempted 15 CFR §734.7(b). Likewise even if there was a non-encryption product that somewhere fell under ITAR, it is also exempt 22 CFR §125.1(a) since open source software is in what ITAR considers accessibility in the public domain. There's still of course the matter of places like North Korea/other embargoed nations, but unless you're actively initiating such specific transfers then there's no concern since the EAR language that I'm aware of refers to 'downloading or causing the downloading...'. I don't know what EAR means on this context (not talking about EJBs, right?) but as it seems that your knowledge on this field is far better than mine, can you confirm if is or not a law infringement of the OSGeo Foundation to let Cuban or North Korean people to download any product from OSGeo stack*? The wiki text I've copied says the contrary, isn't it? * from its own servers like GDAL or hosted outside like Geonetwor, Geoserver, etc. I can't confirm anything since I'm not a lawyer in this field, I just have some familiarity with it having filled out the paperwork to export high-tech items previously. If OSGeo does not have an attorney, probably EFF could be consulted on the matter freely as I'm sure they have experts on this topic. There are also some very knowledgeable people on this matter in the Debian Project and probably other OS projects. However the law itself is surprisingly clear and is worth reading. EAR refers to the Export Administration Regulations, noted in that wiki you linked. They are regulated by the BIS which is part of the Department of Commerce. They regulate the majority of export item. The Department of State also regulates 'defense articles' via ITAR, but since GIS software would most certainly be considered a 'dual purpose' item, as long as it does not include encryption I'd be genuinely shocked if it fell under ITAR. Even if it does, it being open source really helps it. As I mentioned previously, open source software meets the General Software Note exemption under 15 CFR §734.7(b). I urge you to read the language, but basically it says that if the software is generally available, via free or reproduction cost licensing, or like in a library, or is used in a university, etc; then exporting it is rather moot since any foreign national could simply walk in and grab a copy if they wanted anyway. Open source software easily meets this definition. Likewise under ITAR, there is an exemption for non-encryption open source software considered to be in the public domain (in the sense of access, not licensing) under 22 CFR §125.1(a) For encryption open source products, no license is required from BIS, however you have to make a TSU notification - http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/pubavailencsourcecodenofify.html Embargoed destinations and denied persons/entities are a no-go regardless of any exemptions. However simply placing the source code/object code on a website does not constitute export, knowledge of export, nor does it Best -- Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas Ingeniero en Geodesia y Cartografía http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jorge_Sanz ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) wrote: Cleaning up an older thread... From what I gather from the lists there seems to be no broad opinion in favor of making projects move their copyright under the hood of OSGeo. With the recent discussion of potential export restriction enforcement by incorporated organizations incorporated in USA the the need for a more global organization seems to be higher. I am frankly at a loss at where such an organization would be incorporated and what it could look like but if it existed I would very much like to support it. If anyone has a great idea what a truly global OSGeo should look like please speak up. We should spend some thought on copyright every time we admit and evaluate projects in incubation. My personal experience shows that having the copyright of Open Source projects completely under the hood of a community owned organization is a good thing. Everything else is messy. The messy bit only shows when things go wrong so lets keep fingers crossed and as long as nothing happens we'll all be fine. Arnulf, I'm not sure I see the connection between the who holds copyright issue, and the US export controls issue. To me, centralized copyright is primarily helpful when relicensing, or ensuring we have the right to pursue legal action against someone using one of our projects in a fashion that is contrary to the license. I haven't yet come to any conclusions what to do about the US export control problem. One thing that was expressed in the past in a discussion of this problem (perhaps on foundations list) is that many US export controls are a reflection of international convenants on the export of weapons and possibly weapons related technologies that have also been signed by most other major nations. As such, the US just seems to have more organized enforcement, and we might at some point expect some similar enforcement in other nations. I'm not sure exactly how true this is - I suspect there is a lot of leeway in how things are classified, and enforced. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Can you give an example of some osgeo software that is a concern for US export controls? I'm having trouble thinking of any, since encryption isn't really a big factor in most GIS software. Even if it is a component of the software, as long as those encryption components reside outside of it in openssl or similar - while it is an inconvenience - it can be handled the same way this matter has been for years. Distribute/produce the software inside the US without the encryption - and then foreigners can obtain openssl from outside the US.. compile the software, etc. There are probably some GIS software packages that would fall under the EAR, but since they meet the GSN requirements for being 'generally available to the public', they are exempted 15 CFR §734.7(b). Likewise even if there was a non-encryption product that somewhere fell under ITAR, it is also exempt 22 CFR §125.1(a) since open source software is in what ITAR considers accessibility in the public domain. There's still of course the matter of places like North Korea/other embargoed nations, but unless you're actively initiating such specific transfers then there's no concern since the EAR language that I'm aware of refers to 'downloading or causing the downloading...'. regards, - bri On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com wrote: Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) wrote: Cleaning up an older thread... From what I gather from the lists there seems to be no broad opinion in favor of making projects move their copyright under the hood of OSGeo. With the recent discussion of potential export restriction enforcement by incorporated organizations incorporated in USA the the need for a more global organization seems to be higher. I am frankly at a loss at where such an organization would be incorporated and what it could look like but if it existed I would very much like to support it. If anyone has a great idea what a truly global OSGeo should look like please speak up. We should spend some thought on copyright every time we admit and evaluate projects in incubation. My personal experience shows that having the copyright of Open Source projects completely under the hood of a community owned organization is a good thing. Everything else is messy. The messy bit only shows when things go wrong so lets keep fingers crossed and as long as nothing happens we'll all be fine. Arnulf, I'm not sure I see the connection between the who holds copyright issue, and the US export controls issue. To me, centralized copyright is primarily helpful when relicensing, or ensuring we have the right to pursue legal action against someone using one of our projects in a fashion that is contrary to the license. I haven't yet come to any conclusions what to do about the US export control problem. One thing that was expressed in the past in a discussion of this problem (perhaps on foundations list) is that many US export controls are a reflection of international convenants on the export of weapons and possibly weapons related technologies that have also been signed by most other major nations. As such, the US just seems to have more organized enforcement, and we might at some point expect some similar enforcement in other nations. I'm not sure exactly how true this is - I suspect there is a lot of leeway in how things are classified, and enforced. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
While discussing this with Free Software Foundation of India, this topic came up, and I could not explain them the position of software under incubation by OSGeo. May I have a pointer or thread where the status of software under incubation is dealt, indicating, 1. Copy-Left 2. Type of licensing, GNU-GPL, BSD etc Ravi Kumar --- On Sun, 14/2/10, Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) se...@arnulf.us wrote: From: Arnulf Christl (aka Seven) se...@arnulf.us Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership To: OSGeo Discussions discuss@lists.osgeo.org Date: Sunday, 14 February, 2010, 12:14 PM Cleaning up an older thread... From what I gather from the lists there seems to be no broad opinion in favor of making projects move their copyright under the hood of OSGeo. With the recent discussion of potential export restriction enforcement by incorporated organizations incorporated in USA the the need for a more global organization seems to be higher. I am frankly at a loss at where such an organization would be incorporated and what it could look like but if it existed I would very much like to support it. If anyone has a great idea what a truly global OSGeo should look like please speak up. We should spend some thought on copyright every time we admit and evaluate projects in incubation. My personal experience shows that having the copyright of Open Source projects completely under the hood of a community owned organization is a good thing. Everything else is messy. The messy bit only shows when things go wrong so lets keep fingers crossed and as long as nothing happens we'll all be fine. Best regards, Arnulf. On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:34 +, Chris Puttick wrote: The other issue with assigning code copyrights to a US-based organisation is a simple one. The US has the strongest software patent machine and the most supportive courts (if you pick your state carefully ;) ). As FOSSGIS applications bite ever harder into the profits of the dominant player(s), the chance of the game being changed to a legal one rather than a sales and marketing one is pretty high; a fight OSGeo couldn't afford to be in. Chris - Landon Blake lbl...@ksninc.com wrote: One example of the restrictions Luis is talking about is the prohibition against distributing certain cryptographic software outside of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography Don't know that OSGeo would bump into that, but it is one example of a US specific restriction on organizations involved in software development. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Luis W. Sevilla Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- http://arnulf.us Exploring Space, Time and Mind ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Ravi wrote: While discussing this with Free Software Foundation of India, this topic came up, and I could not explain them the position of software under incubation by OSGeo. May I have a pointer or thread where the status of software under incubation is dealt, indicating, 1. Copy-Left 2. Type of licensing, GNU-GPL, BSD etc Ravi, I wasn't able to find a specific incubation document that addresses, it, but it is required that projects release their code under an open source license - in particular one approved (or clearly essentially identical to) by OSI (http://www.opensource.org). That means that GPL, LGPL, BSD, and quite a number of other open source licenses are considered acceptable. We also do a code provenance review to try and ensure that the existing code base of the project is properly contributed. This is described at: http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/codereview.html Current policy is that projects may choose to leave copyright with the original contributors, some outside body or OSGeo. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Cleaning up an older thread... From what I gather from the lists there seems to be no broad opinion in favor of making projects move their copyright under the hood of OSGeo. With the recent discussion of potential export restriction enforcement by incorporated organizations incorporated in USA the the need for a more global organization seems to be higher. I am frankly at a loss at where such an organization would be incorporated and what it could look like but if it existed I would very much like to support it. If anyone has a great idea what a truly global OSGeo should look like please speak up. We should spend some thought on copyright every time we admit and evaluate projects in incubation. My personal experience shows that having the copyright of Open Source projects completely under the hood of a community owned organization is a good thing. Everything else is messy. The messy bit only shows when things go wrong so lets keep fingers crossed and as long as nothing happens we'll all be fine. Best regards, Arnulf. On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:34 +, Chris Puttick wrote: The other issue with assigning code copyrights to a US-based organisation is a simple one. The US has the strongest software patent machine and the most supportive courts (if you pick your state carefully ;) ). As FOSSGIS applications bite ever harder into the profits of the dominant player(s), the chance of the game being changed to a legal one rather than a sales and marketing one is pretty high; a fight OSGeo couldn't afford to be in. Chris - Landon Blake lbl...@ksninc.com wrote: One example of the restrictions Luis is talking about is the prohibition against distributing certain cryptographic software outside of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography Don't know that OSGeo would bump into that, but it is one example of a US specific restriction on organizations involved in software development. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Luis W. Sevilla Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- http://arnulf.us Exploring Space, Time and Mind ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
(Sorry if duplicated. it doesn't seem to be arrived first time) Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Arnulf Christl wrote: What do folks think about software Copyright ownership? OSGeo could suggest that project steering committees move the Copyright of their software under the hood of OSGeo as GeoTools and others already did. In some cases the respective project steering committees might not be able to do such a thing because they do not own it in the first place. Is that a good situation? Arnulf, While I would prefer copyright in OSGeo projects to reside with OSGeo for simplicity and uniform management, I am concerned that the paperwork to do this properly would be a barrier to participation. I am also concerned that some developers would be concerned about OSGeo having the right to relicense their software - for instance, possibly moving code from LGPL/GPL to more permissive open source license - contrary to their wishes when they contributed the code. I am also doubtful of our ability to convincingly get all the code of some projects assigned to OSGeo. An incomplete job does not seem much better than not having bothered at all. So, I'm on the side of business as usual which is that it is up to the project to decide how they want to handle this as long as things are handled responsibly and the results are under an open source license. I would note that despite some cloudiness in the MySQL world, it remains clear that the code remains available to use under the open source license it was originally published under (GPL I think?). I think that is the key guarantee. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Frank Warmerdam wrote: I am also concerned that some developers would be concerned about OSGeo having the right to relicense their software - for instance, possibly moving code from LGPL/GPL to more permissive open source license - contrary to their wishes when they contributed the code. The other way round, going to a less permissive license (e.g. from MIT to LGPL or even GPL) is also a big concern. Regards, Barend ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
On Dec 13, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote: [...] My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their business (great analogy, hehe). Is their any advantage of keeping the Copyright under a private property? Depends. There may be more trust in some private properties than others. So far as I'm aware, OGC is a private property, you you argue that putting KML under OGC was a good thing. OSGeo is also a private property. It is a foundation, managed by an elected board -- but so are most companies. (OSgeo isn't even, so far as I know, a registered nonprofit organization at this time.) What makes OSGeo a better steward for code than organizations which have managed code for years -- or in the cases of some projects, decades? What I get back from corporate users of Open Source software these days is the same, they would rather have the Copyright sit with a (real) non-profit like OSGeo than anything else. How is OSGeo a real non-profit? I don't see a strong reason to change the methods of projects that have successfully managed many years of code contributions. The best people to make those decisions are people who have successfully managed those projects. It's great that OSGeo now feels comfortable managing the copyright of projects, but it's not clear to me what that actually means. Who is the person who controls the copyright? Who makes decisions about how it is managed -- and what happens if someone disagrees with those decisions? I think that it would be lovely to create an environment where projects feel that giving copyright over to OSGeo makes their lives -- as project managers -- easier. I'm not convinced that is currently the case; the lack of obvious documentation on how projects should give copyright to OSGeo, and what it means when it happens, seems to me like it creates a void in which projects might feel uncomfortable about giving copyright to OSGeo, for fear of what that might mean. Improving that, through solid documentation, seems a great first step in making projects feel more comfortable with that process; this is certainly true for me as a contributor to OpenLayers. I am not a lawyer. But here's some info I believe is largely correct. Regarding keeping the copyright in a non-profit -- in the US, a 501(c)(3) has no owners, there is no stock, and as such, all the assets of the corporation are retained within the corporation under the control of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors can either (a) disposes of the assets or (b) dissolve the Corporation. Disposing of the assets must be done in a way that doesn't benefit individual directors, their families, or close associates. (OSGeo has this spelled out in its Certificate of Incorporation in Article X [1]) Dissolving the Corporation must be done as spelled out in either the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation (in something known as a dissolution clause) and essentially involves turning the assets over to another 501(c)(3). (OSGeo has such a clause in Article IX [1]) Disposing of assets could take the form of a sale to a private party, with the proceeds going to the Corporation. But I would think that the Board of Directors would have to document how that advances the non-profit purpose of the Corporation. Now back to opinion. In any case, I suspect that there's plenty of room for a Board of Directors to do the wrong thing with any asset (copyrights, property, cash, etc), either intentionally or unintentionally without getting in trouble, simply because no one notices. If someone disagrees with a decision taken by the Board, I don't think there is any recourse as long as the Board didn't do anything illegal. If someone thinks the Board is about to do something he or she disagrees with, that person would have to try to influence that action by following the rules in the Bylaws [2] to either change the composition of the Board, remove one or more Board members, or get enough support to make the Board think either of those things might happen and thus decide not to do something that would cause the individual to take action. (Assuming, of course that simply appealing to the Board to not take the action didn't work). This is the stuff of boardroom dramas that you read about in the news... with any luck at all, OSGeo noodles along as one big happy family. But it's good to know what the legal parameters are. Allan [1] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/osgeo_certificate.pdf [2] http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/incorporation/bylaws.html ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Oops. One more bit about this. On Dec 14, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Allan Doyle wrote: On Dec 13, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Christopher Schmidt wrote: [...] My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their business (great analogy, hehe). Is their any advantage of keeping the Copyright under a private property? Depends. There may be more trust in some private properties than others. So far as I'm aware, OGC is a private property, you you argue that putting KML under OGC was a good thing. OSGeo is also a private property. It is a foundation, managed by an elected board -- but so are most companies. (OSgeo isn't even, so far as I know, a registered nonprofit organization at this time.) What makes OSGeo a better steward for code than organizations which have managed code for years -- or in the cases of some projects, decades? Once again - I'm not a lawyer... OSGeo is a non-profit by virtue of the way it was incorporated. The IRS ruling that's in progress is not to decide whether or not it's a non-profit. It's to decide whether it's a public charity or a foundation, each being specific legal terms that affect the rules under which it operates. If the organization fails to secure an IRS ruling after a certain amount of time, I think it defaults to foundation unless its annual income is under $25,000. But both forms are 501(c)(3), and in any case, it is bound to operate under the provisions of the certificate of incorporation and the bylaws. Allan ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
One example of the restrictions Luis is talking about is the prohibition against distributing certain cryptographic software outside of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography Don't know that OSGeo would bump into that, but it is one example of a US specific restriction on organizations involved in software development. Landon Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Luis W. Sevilla Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership Hi, one thing must be taken in account, IMHO. If I'm not wrong OSGeo is an USA foundation (is registered in the States, and must follow his laws, of course. As USA maintains a commercial embargo to Cuba [1], it seems there are a lot of things in technology fields restricted to American companies (and also foundations). If OSGeo will not became a more global (not so USA laws conditioned) institution, it doesn't seem so good the idea of giving all and every copyrights to the foundation. My two cents Luis [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
What do folks think about software Copyright ownership? OSGeo could suggest that project steering committees move the Copyright of their software under the hood of OSGeo as GeoTools and others already did. In some cases the respective project steering committees might not be able to do such a thing because they do not own it in the first place. Is that a good situation? To my knowledge (this needs verification) Apache has all its projects under their own license and owns the copyright for the code. Very straightforward. Outside of Open Source in the standards arena Google has given the Copyright of KML to the OGC - which is good. In OpenStreetMap not doing this has resulted in arguably unresolvable licensing problems. Let me predict that the user community (remember 2005/11) will probably favor such an approach (and with big lamento) and that current Copyright owners of code and trademarks might be rather more reluctant. A recent example that shows what problems can be caused by not clearly separating Copyright, business ownership and trademarks is MySQL. The company MySQL AB operated the project MySQL and sold the product MySQL under a dual licensing schema. Now MySQL AB (the company) is owned by Oracle. Who owns the copyright of the project MySQL? And what happens to the trademarks? I generally do not agree with Monty[1] (twittered by James Fee) and believe that he has other motivations and should have taken preventive measures up front to avoid what is happening right now. But whatever the outcome of this fight it for sure has been damaging to the project. In a response/comment from Groklaw (twittered by Paul Ramsey): http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392 And on what legal basis would anyone have authority to change the license, other than the copyright holder? Are you seriously suggesting that a regulatory body decide the license instead of the copyright owner? What a reckless idea. My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their business (great analogy, hehe). Is their any advantage of keeping the Copyright under a private property? What I get back from corporate users of Open Source software these days is the same, they would rather have the Copyright sit with a (real) non-profit like OSGeo than anything else. Just a last note: This thread might grow large (these soft topics where everybody seems to be expert are abominable). Please do not use IANAL in any post, just argue straight forward to your point. /me slowly walks off for cover Best regards, Arnulf. [1] http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-saving-mysql.html -- Arnulf Christl Exploring Space, Time and Mind http://arnulf.us/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Software Copyright ownership
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:58:01PM -0800, Arnulf Christl wrote: What do folks think about software Copyright ownership? OSGeo could suggest that project steering committees move the Copyright of their software under the hood of OSGeo as GeoTools and others already did. In some cases the respective project steering committees might not be able to do such a thing because they do not own it in the first place. Is that a good situation? To my knowledge (this needs verification) Apache has all its projects under their own license and owns the copyright for the code. To be honest, after reviewing the way the Apache Foundation works, it's not atall clear to me that we have a strong desire to follow their model. A brief search turned up: * No list of contributors to the project * No obvious maintainership of a list of sources of code * No obvious documents indicating copyright assignment of any kind to the Apache Foundation. * No obvious requirements for Copyright Assignment (Only License Assignment, via CLA.) Very straightforward. Outside of Open Source in the standards arena Google has given the Copyright of KML to the OGC - which is good. It's not clear to me to what extent 'KML' has a copyright; Google states that KML is an open standard officially named the OpenGIS® KML Encoding Standard (OGC KML). It is maintained by the Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. (OGC). It is not clear to me that maintainership of a specification document is at all equivilant to copyright of code. In OpenStreetMap not doing this has resulted in arguably unresolvable licensing problems. In OpenStreetMap, having all contributors agree to place data under a copyright license has caused a problem. ALthough if the data were owned by some entity, that entity would be able to change the license, it is not clear to me that the problem is that this wasn't the case; instead the problem was that the license chosen was not the right one (though it seemed the best option at the time) because it didn't do what people thought it did. A recent example that shows what problems can be caused by not clearly separating Copyright, business ownership and trademarks is MySQL. The company MySQL AB operated the project MySQL and sold the product MySQL under a dual licensing schema. Now MySQL AB (the company) is owned by Oracle. Who owns the copyright of the project MySQL? And what happens to the trademarks? I generally do not agree with Monty[1] (twittered by James Fee) and believe that he has other motivations and should have taken preventive measures up front to avoid what is happening right now. But whatever the outcome of this fight it for sure has been damaging to the project. In a response/comment from Groklaw (twittered by Paul Ramsey): http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392 And on what legal basis would anyone have authority to change the license, other than the copyright holder? Are you seriously suggesting that a regulatory body decide the license instead of the copyright owner? What a reckless idea. My private opinion on this issue is pretty clear: Move your Copyright to OSGeo - all of it including trademarks, logos and designs. That is what OSGeo is there for. Get it out of corporate reach, it is none of their business (great analogy, hehe). Is their any advantage of keeping the Copyright under a private property? Depends. There may be more trust in some private properties than others. So far as I'm aware, OGC is a private property, you you argue that putting KML under OGC was a good thing. OSGeo is also a private property. It is a foundation, managed by an elected board -- but so are most companies. (OSgeo isn't even, so far as I know, a registered nonprofit organization at this time.) What makes OSGeo a better steward for code than organizations which have managed code for years -- or in the cases of some projects, decades? What I get back from corporate users of Open Source software these days is the same, they would rather have the Copyright sit with a (real) non-profit like OSGeo than anything else. How is OSGeo a real non-profit? I don't see a strong reason to change the methods of projects that have successfully managed many years of code contributions. The best people to make those decisions are people who have successfully managed those projects. It's great that OSGeo now feels comfortable managing the copyright of projects, but it's not clear to me what that actually means. Who is the person who controls the copyright? Who makes decisions about how it is managed -- and what happens if someone disagrees with those decisions? I think that it would be lovely to create an environment where projects feel that giving copyright over to OSGeo makes their lives -- as project managers -- easier. I'm not convinced that is currently the case; the lack of obvious documentation on how projects should
