Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > One of the functions of the foundation exists to handle legal matters. > Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership > over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a > corporation would for its employees? The fact that Gentoo developers aren't employees would be a big problem with that. This isn't work for hire, and maintaining this highly productive email list probably isn't compensation enough to qualify. The only way Gentoo can hold copyright is if individuals donate the rights to their work. And, as has been pointed out, even that gets tricky in some jurisdictions. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19/11/2012 14:45, Richard Yao wrote: > Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership > over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a > corporation would for its employees? Lots. > Alternatively, do people working for companies in Europe retain > copyright over everything that they did while employed? During their spare time, yes, as far as I can tell (but obviously I'm not a lawyer). Usually that matter is settled with the employment contract you sign (or otherwise with a specific agreement for contractual work). As far as I can tell in neither case you're losing your "author's rights", but you're giving the company the ability to do what they want with the code. Again, this should be handled through the Foundation, so ask the Trustees or if you don't want to, ask FSFe or SFLC. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 11/19/2012 01:16 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote: >> So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go >> ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to. >> >> I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to >> obtain damages when I gave you authorization to remove my name. > > You're trying to navigate extremely difficult and varying waters. > > Remember that under most European copyright laws (under "author's > rights", which includes Germany, France and Italy at the very least), > you can't even have "public domain", as long as you're alive. > > Which is why things like WTFPL came up to be. > One of the functions of the foundation exists to handle legal matters. Is there anything that prevents the foundation from claiming ownership over work done on Gentoo Infrastructure in the same sense that a corporation would for its employees? Alternatively, do people working for companies in Europe retain copyright over everything that they did while employed? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:06:17PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and > >> remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it? > > > > Just removing the name doesn't remove the copyright itself, but, and > > this is the important thing, it shows "intent". Intent is a very > > powerful thing when it comes to legal enforcement. If you remove a > > copyright line, or add your own line, you are showing what you are > > wanting to do here. > > > > So if you remove a copyright line, you are showing your "intent" to > > remove the legal notification of the original copyright holders of the > > file, which, in numerous juristictions, can be a very serious offence. > > > > Again, talk to a lawyer for all of the details if you are curious. > > So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go > ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to. > > I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to > obtain damages when I gave you authorization to remove my name. You obviously are trying to apply "logic" to laws. That can not always be done, sorry, you should know better :) Again, if you want details, talk to a copyright lawyer. You aren't taking my word for it, so I'm not going to try to argue the point any further. > That said, I'd be happy to chat with a lawyer about this, and if you > know of any who wouldn't mind having such a conversation free of > charge, let me know, or feel free to point them to the list. Lawyers that work free-of-charge are rare, but the SFLC has some that might be able to help out. Again, the Foundation should be doing this, and set up the proper guidelines/rules that we all follow, and then these discussions will not need to happen. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19.11.2012 19.02, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand >> copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter >> and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite >> what you said a few emails ago, copyright/left is not something that >> every software developer understands. > > I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school > (if you went to school for software development), or from any company > you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was > part of the "introduction to company FOO, here's your legal training on > what to do and not to do with regards to open source." _ANY_ company > dealing with Linux should have this type of thing in place, otherwise, > as I have found out first hand, it can get you in big trouble. > In Finland you can graduate with a computer science degree without taking any law related course. There's an optional course on IT law that is very good but not everyone takes it. For working in a company the law assigns copyright of source code automatically to the company. For proprietary shops the training could mostly be about not touching open source code without prior approval. So in summary my guess is that there are many open source contributors around who also work in IT who don't have the exposure to law you think. For people dealing directly with Linux it's probably as you say. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:23:44PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800 > Greg KH wrote: > > No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick > > consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good > > set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in > > order to ensure that the Foundation does not get into any trouble > > when it comes to copyrights. > > The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it > resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone > was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their > floppy disks and monitors to drobbins upon request. Yes, that was due to me refusing to sign the old Gentoo copyright assignment (well, actually, my employer at the time refused to sign it, rightfully so.) I thought we had that all worked out since then, as it was, what, 8+ years ago? thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19.11.2012 18.33, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit >> >> I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within >> a file, or even a single line, all depending on things. > > Yup - any creative expression is copyrightable. Your two line email > is completely copyrightable, and so is the one line you quoted. That > said, Anthony couldn't have used copyright to prevent you and I from > quoting him, as it would almost certainly be considered fair use. > That doesn't mean that his email wasn't copyrightable - only that > copyright is not an impervious protection. > Under Finnish law there's the concept threshold of originality and I doubt you would get a court to accept a single line of email for that. There's also a body creating precedent for it but I haven't investigated their decisions. I tried googling but couldn't find a source for it but I think FSF has also operated so that they haven't required copyright assignment for single patches worth a couple lines. This is my memory from talking to a GNU maintainer some years back. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Sorry Rich, are you freaking kidding me? Europe would need to change > laws? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? > > There's a very simple way to handle this and it doesn't require changing > laws that are perfectly fine for most people living in Europe, thank you > very much, and that's called a license agreement. Uh, I was joking. Sorry if that was not apparent. Turning away Europeans or trying to change the laws is absurd. And I'm sure that if any policies get changed, lawyers will be consulted. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19/11/2012 10:44, Rich Freeman wrote: > If Gentoo were trying to monetize/dual-license/etc then the benefits > of airtight copyright assignments would be greater, as would be the > benefit of telling anybody in the EU that their help simply isn't > needed unless they can convince their parliaments to change their > laws. As a community distro, however, we have a different set of > priorities. Sorry Rich, are you freaking kidding me? Europe would need to change laws? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? There's a very simple way to handle this and it doesn't require changing laws that are perfectly fine for most people living in Europe, thank you very much, and that's called a license agreement. https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html I'm afraid that now I have to just do a Greg and suggest that before you speak further, you talk to a lawyer. SFLC would probably answer your questions for free, if not try asking FSFe, I know they have a legal counsel office. Or do you think that Sun/Oracle and Google refuse to get people working on their project from Europe? -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it > resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone > was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their > floppy disks and monitors to drobbins upon request. Hence my comment on risk management. The only way to be safe is to not get anything done. The same is true of avoiding kicking off projects that tick people off - the only way to do that is to effectively not have any more projects (after everybody gives up on the process). I'm sure Gentoo's risk balance can be improved, but the fact is that in this day and age, writing software entails legal risk, just like helping somebody cross the street. If Gentoo were trying to monetize/dual-license/etc then the benefits of airtight copyright assignments would be greater, as would be the benefit of telling anybody in the EU that their help simply isn't needed unless they can convince their parliaments to change their laws. As a community distro, however, we have a different set of priorities. I think the key is to understand the risk that we're taking, and the benefits of changing things. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with > > a very good set of rules and boundry conditions > > The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it > resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone > was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their > floppy disks and monitors to drobbins upon request. There are obviously bad copyright lawyers for open source projects. But there are also really good ones. //Peter pgpMqVgo7DB6d.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800 Greg KH wrote: > No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick > consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good > set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in > order to ensure that the Foundation does not get into any trouble > when it comes to copyrights. The last time someone from Gentoo spoke to a copyright lawyer, it resulted in a year-or-so-long ban on recruiting anyone, and everyone was supposed to sign a piece of paper agreeing to turn over all their floppy disks and monitors to drobbins upon request. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19/11/2012 10:06, Rich Freeman wrote: > So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go > ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to. > > I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to > obtain damages when I gave you authorization to remove my name. You're trying to navigate extremely difficult and varying waters. Remember that under most European copyright laws (under "author's rights", which includes Germany, France and Italy at the very least), you can't even have "public domain", as long as you're alive. Which is why things like WTFPL came up to be. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and >> remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it? > > Just removing the name doesn't remove the copyright itself, but, and > this is the important thing, it shows "intent". Intent is a very > powerful thing when it comes to legal enforcement. If you remove a > copyright line, or add your own line, you are showing what you are > wanting to do here. > > So if you remove a copyright line, you are showing your "intent" to > remove the legal notification of the original copyright holders of the > file, which, in numerous juristictions, can be a very serious offence. > > Again, talk to a lawyer for all of the details if you are curious. So, I give you a file. Then I tell you IN WRITING that you can go ahead and remove my name from the copyright line if you want to. I think it would be hard for me to argue that I should be able to obtain damages when I gave you authorization to remove my name. I think the general intent is not to pretend that others did not contribute to the work before, but rather to avoid cluttering the file with a laundry list of names. That said, I'd be happy to chat with a lawyer about this, and if you know of any who wouldn't mind having such a conversation free of charge, let me know, or feel free to point them to the list. > No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick > consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good set > of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in order > to ensure that the Foundation does not get into any trouble when it > comes to copyrights. The only way to avoid trouble when it comes to copyright is to never copy anything, or link to anything, and make sure that anybody else using your internet connection does the same. Everything after that is just an exercise in risk mitigation. I don't think there is any basis in law for getting in trouble for removing names from copyrights for GPL works. That said, there doesn't need to be a basis in law for being sued, or even for losing a lawsuit. So, if I had to vote on this as a trustee I'd likely take the conservative approach. However, I'll reserve my right to whine about the problems with the legal system all the same. :) >From my general interactions with lawyers in the US they're very pragmatic. They aren't about "right and wrong" but rather what you can and can't get away with. It really doesn't matter if I'm completely right and you're completely wrong, if in order for me to exercise my rights I have to spend $100k fighting in courts, and perhaps even losing in the process. In the US, your rights are whatever you can afford for them to be. On the topic of risk mitigation - it is all about what you get vs what you could lose. Honestly I don't see much reason for removing people from copyright lines other than for the sake of decluttering. That being the case, the wisest move might be to just add the Foundation to copyright statements and leave the rest alone. For ebuilds I'd probably keep the headers in accordance with the standard format, and just move any existing copyright statements further down in the file. If clutter gets really bad we should consider whether we can just move excessive copyright statements to the end of the file, perhaps with a reference at the top next to a single line copyright statement (Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation, et al - Licensed under... - see end of file for further details). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
Greg KH wrote: > this isn't obvious at first glance, go consult a copyright lawyer > for the specific details if you are curious about it. > > Which, again, I strongly feel that the Foundation needs to do +1 > before anymore "Copyright Gentoo Foundation" marks get added to > _any_ files in our tree. I always did wonder about how that works in ebuilds. I assumed that part of being a developer included assignment for any ebuilds to be committed. Of course that isn't true for what I have in my overlay. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 19/11/2012 09:02, Greg KH wrote: > I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school > (if you went to school for software development), or from any company > you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was > part of the "introduction to company FOO, here's your legal training on > what to do and not to do with regards to open source." _ANY_ company > dealing with Linux should have this type of thing in place, otherwise, > as I have found out first hand, it can get you in big trouble. I can only speak for my personal experience, but that hasn't been the case. Even though I didn't continue with my university in Italy, I don't remember any copyright law course at least when I was supposed to be there. And even though in high school I was studying as a programmer, we only had very basic "law" classes in the first two years (common to non-programmers) and none in the final three. As for companies I worked for — no, not really. Actually at least at one of them I was the one introducing them to the complexity of license handling (with a final "you better call a lawyer up" note, for obvious reasons). So no, I'd venture to say that it's not as common as you seem to expect, which yes, is appalling. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law, > > and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major > > change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon > > standard to follow). Because of that, I disagree that you think this is > > something that is unknown at all. > > I realize that it is illegal to remove a copyright line from a work > without permission, just as it is illegal to copy a work in the first > place without permission. The question is whether the GPL gives such > permission, whether it is possible to give such permission, or at > least whether you can give somebody this permission and then sue them > for following through. > > That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and > remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it? Just removing the name doesn't remove the copyright itself, but, and this is the important thing, it shows "intent". Intent is a very powerful thing when it comes to legal enforcement. If you remove a copyright line, or add your own line, you are showing what you are wanting to do here. So if you remove a copyright line, you are showing your "intent" to remove the legal notification of the original copyright holders of the file, which, in numerous juristictions, can be a very serious offence. Again, talk to a lawyer for all of the details if you are curious. > I suspect the wisest course of action for the Foundation will be to > take the conservative approach. However, I do not believe that this > is because this is legally required. It is simply a matter of not > being wise to spend all that donated money fighting to prove that this > is the case. After all, even if I'm completely right, that doesn't > mean that somebody can't sue me. Winning a legal case in the US is a > very expensive proposition. I'm sure that would be the advice of any > lawyer we retained. All that said, a formal policy would be a good > idea. No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in order to ensure that the Foundation does not get into any trouble when it comes to copyrights. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:41:54AM -0500, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand > copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter > and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite > what you said a few emails ago, copyright/left is not something that > every software developer understands. I'm curious as to why this is? Didn't you learn about this in school (if you went to school for software development), or from any company you have worked for? At numerous companies I have worked for, it was part of the "introduction to company FOO, here's your legal training on what to do and not to do with regards to open source." _ANY_ company dealing with Linux should have this type of thing in place, otherwise, as I have found out first hand, it can get you in big trouble. > My fundamental confusion was over the question of what is the > smallest copyrightable unit. I think in terms of blame/kudos and > the unit that comes to mind is one commit, properly isolated. When > a project becomes serious, I get careful about the signoffs vs > authors vs reporters etc. And "blame" is as much a part of the game > as "kudos". Yes, an individual "unit" of contribution is copyrightable, but, and this is the important part, it doesn't modify the overall copyright of the whole file unless some other criteria is met (i.e. a "major" change to the file overall, this has come to mean at least 1/3 of the logic/code.) And then there's the overall copyright for the whole program, which too depends on the copyrights of the individual files, that is another thing to determine. Yes, this isn't obvious at first glance, go consult a copyright lawyer for the specific details if you are curious about it. Which, again, I strongly feel that the Foundation needs to do before anymore "Copyright Gentoo Foundation" marks get added to _any_ files in our tree. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> The answer appears to be that a file is the unit > > I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within > a file, or even a single line, all depending on things. Yup - any creative expression is copyrightable. Your two line email is completely copyrightable, and so is the one line you quoted. That said, Anthony couldn't have used copyright to prevent you and I from quoting him, as it would almost certainly be considered fair use. That doesn't mean that his email wasn't copyrightable - only that copyright is not an impervious protection. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
Anthony G. Basile wrote: > The answer appears to be that a file is the unit I personally consider it to be smaller; a number of lines within a file, or even a single line, all depending on things. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 11/18/2012 11:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to eudev, among other things, in various files after misunderstanding what the Foundation officers in charge of legal matters had approved. You objected to it. I asked for clarification after seeing that your name had not been removed from any copyright notices. You explained your complaint. I asked you to wait for the person who wrote the commit to fix it. It was fixed. That is all that was necessary. Whining on the list did not wake the author of that commit sooner. Furthermore, the changes that you wanted would have been made in a few days had you not become involved. None of the words you wrote here seem to me to be related to my response about copyright, the Gentoo Foundation, and how copyright works for software projects at all. So I'm a bit confused, what are you concerned about here? greg k-h Your issue has been resolved. You can stop beating the dead horse now. I was responding to a discussion about how copyright works, and how it should be marked as such for Gentoo-related projects, that was not correct in my knowledge of copyright law. It had nothing to do with "my issue", or the udev issue at all, which is why I even changed the subject. Oh well. *plonk* Greg, Thank you for these responses because they did help me understand copyright/left better. I appreciate your expertise in the matter and would hope I can draw on it again in the future, because despite what you said a few emails ago, copyright/left is not something that every software developer understands. My fundamental confusion was over the question of what is the smallest copyrightable unit. I think in terms of blame/kudos and the unit that comes to mind is one commit, properly isolated. When a project becomes serious, I get careful about the signoffs vs authors vs reporters etc. And "blame" is as much a part of the game as "kudos". The other levels are files and projects. So this leads to the other confusion, do you touch every file in the project when forking etc. The answer appears to be that a file is the unit, but from practice I've seen all three. What is correct is what passes in the courts and I do not want to, nor have I ever, tested that. Thus working with copyright is fundamentally different than working with code because I can readily test one but not the other. Since you only gain experience by doing something, I can confidently say I have zero copyright experience. Again thanks. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. Professor of Information Technology D'Youville College Buffalo, NY 14201 (716) 829-8197
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law, > and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major > change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon > standard to follow). Because of that, I disagree that you think this is > something that is unknown at all. I realize that it is illegal to remove a copyright line from a work without permission, just as it is illegal to copy a work in the first place without permission. The question is whether the GPL gives such permission, whether it is possible to give such permission, or at least whether you can give somebody this permission and then sue them for following through. That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it? > > But I'm not going to be able to change your mind :) Please get the > Foundation to write up the rules apon which Gentoo developers need to > handle the copyright mark, so that there's no disagreement as to what to > do, in any type of situation. I'm not curious enough that I'd be willing to spend money on this. If somebody wants to change my mind they're welcome to provide me with a reference for a relevant case. I'm sure there are endless cases of bad things happening to people removing copyright lines, just as there are endless cases of people being sued for copying files. I'm concerned with cases where something bad has happened to somebody who removed a copyright line after being given permission to do so, and cases dealing with copyleft licenses and whether they grant this permission. I suspect the wisest course of action for the Foundation will be to take the conservative approach. However, I do not believe that this is because this is legally required. It is simply a matter of not being wise to spend all that donated money fighting to prove that this is the case. After all, even if I'm completely right, that doesn't mean that somebody can't sue me. Winning a legal case in the US is a very expensive proposition. I'm sure that would be the advice of any lawyer we retained. All that said, a formal policy would be a good idea. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:21:20PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: > On 11/18/2012 11:22 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: > >> On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > >> We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer > >> decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to > >> eudev, among other things, in various files after misunderstanding what > >> the Foundation officers in charge of legal matters had approved. You > >> objected to it. I asked for clarification after seeing that your name > >> had not been removed from any copyright notices. You explained your > >> complaint. I asked you to wait for the person who wrote the commit to > >> fix it. It was fixed. > >> > >> That is all that was necessary. Whining on the list did not wake the > >> author of that commit sooner. Furthermore, the changes that you wanted > >> would have been made in a few days had you not become involved. > > > > None of the words you wrote here seem to me to be related to my response > > about copyright, the Gentoo Foundation, and how copyright works for > > software projects at all. So I'm a bit confused, what are you concerned > > about here? > > > > greg k-h > > Your issue has been resolved. You can stop beating the dead horse now. I was responding to a discussion about how copyright works, and how it should be marked as such for Gentoo-related projects, that was not correct in my knowledge of copyright law. It had nothing to do with "my issue", or the udev issue at all, which is why I even changed the subject. Oh well. *plonk*
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:29:35PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of > > a file, although it is generally considered something that you really > > should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.) > > Agreed that removing the line does not change the actual copyright of > the file, well, aside from anything new you stick on that line. > > I'm not convinced that it is something you can't do if you're > explicitly given permission to do so by the copyright holder. Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law, and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon standard to follow). Because of that, I disagree that you think this is something that is unknown at all. But I'm not going to be able to change your mind :) Please get the Foundation to write up the rules apon which Gentoo developers need to handle the copyright mark, so that there's no disagreement as to what to do, in any type of situation. thanks, greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:05:05PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: > On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer > decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to > eudev, among other things, in various files after misunderstanding what > the Foundation officers in charge of legal matters had approved. You > objected to it. I asked for clarification after seeing that your name > had not been removed from any copyright notices. You explained your > complaint. I asked you to wait for the person who wrote the commit to > fix it. It was fixed. > > That is all that was necessary. Whining on the list did not wake the > author of that commit sooner. Furthermore, the changes that you wanted > would have been made in a few days had you not become involved. None of the words you wrote here seem to me to be related to my response about copyright, the Gentoo Foundation, and how copyright works for software projects at all. So I'm a bit confused, what are you concerned about here? greg k-h
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: >> COPYRIGHT >> >> I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing >> on any of the really contentious points here. >> >> I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the >> world that (emphasis mine): >> You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF >> IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute >> such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, >> provided that you also meet all of these conditions... >> >> None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact. > > True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of > a file, although it is generally considered something that you really > should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.) > >> Anybody can therefore alter the copyright line as they wish, as they >> have been given explicit permission to do so. They need only comply >> with the other terms in the LGPL to do so (the most important being >> licensing it under the LGPL and making the source available. > > Heh, wait, no, you can not do that. You can not modify a copyright line > to add your own, without first doing one of the two things I discussed > in the beginning. Otherwise, don't you think that all of those big > companies that are using Linux and other open source projects would have > done something like this already? > >> In fact, (L)GPL v3 has an optional attribution clause, and the fact >> that they made this explicit is because some projects might not want >> to give out this authorization. > > Changing the lines in the comment block in the code files is not what > attribution clauses are about at all. > > I could go into details about copyright, and how it works, and how you > need to treat it if you are a programmer, but I'm not a lawyer, and the > rules are different in different countries and even states. > > I have, however, worked with a very large number of lawyers, and > companies, and have the basics down, and none of what you say above is > really allowed at all, sorry. > > Also note, if you just remove code from a file, you don't get copyright > of the file, which is a fun thing to think about if you are trying to > remove features from a product, or doing 'git revert' of specific > patchsets. > >> So, if you want an official ruling from the trustees we would need to >> meet/vote on it and perhaps discuss with counsel, but my thinking is >> that anybody distributing work under the (L)GPL has waived their right >> to be named on the copyright line of any copies distributed by others, > > Again, no, this is flat out not right. Please discuss with counsel if > you disagree and they can go into the details. > >> and as far as I can tell I have found nothing to the contrary from any >> authoritative source. > > Talk to a copyright lawyer please. I'm sure there is one that the > Foundation uses, right? > >> Again, that's my two cents and not a license for anybody to do >> anything. This topic did come up recently with regard to accepting >> some other kind of outside work into Gentoo, and as I recall there was >> some debate over whether the copyright notices could be changed. I'd >> have to dig up the details - I think the issue might have been mooted >> before any kind of formal decision was reached... > > I think this is something that the Foundation's counsel better get set > up properly, as it really is a big deal, and can come back to cause big > problems if done wrong. I say this as someone who has been part of > lawsuits dealing with this type of thing, and as someone who has worked > with lawyers on copyright issues for open source projects for a very > long time[1]. > > But as always, talk to a lawyer, I suggest that the Foundation do this > to set up the proper guidelines and rules that all Gentoo developers > need to follow. That will clear all of this confusion up properly. > > thanks, > > greg k-h We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to eudev, among other things, in various files after misunderstanding what the Foundation officers in charge of legal matters had approved. You objected to it. I asked for clarification after seeing that your name had not been removed from any copyright notices. You explained your complaint. I asked you to wait for the person who wrote the commit to fix it. It was fixed. That is all that was necessary. Whining on the list did not wake the author of that commit sooner. Furthermore, the changes that you wanted would have been made in a few days had you not become involved. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of > a file, although it is generally considered something that you really > should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.) Agreed that removing the line does not change the actual copyright of the file, well, aside from anything new you stick on that line. I'm not convinced that it is something you can't do if you're explicitly given permission to do so by the copyright holder. > Again, no, this is flat out not right. Please discuss with counsel if > you disagree and they can go into the details. Well, certainly something worth doing in any case. I think any answer given by anybody is going to be speculative, as doubt that any court has ruled on whether removing names from a copyright line licensed under the GPL is illegal. There are fairly few rulings of any kind concerning the GPL. Copyright just wasn't really written with copyleft in mind. I suspect, as a result, that most lawyers would basically listen to my argument and say "well, sure, you can argue that, and a judge might or might not buy it, but do you really want to be sued over this to find out?" That's the issue with the law in most jurisdictions - the only way you can truly find out if something is illegal is for somebody to try it and go to court. After all, who would have thought that you could patent round corners? Suppose I send you a program that I've copyrighted. It has a line on it saying "Copyright 2012 - Richard Freeman - see accompanying license file." on it. I tell you that I don't mind if you remove the copyright line. Can you remove it? Now, suppose instead I tell you that you can make any change you want in the file - can you remove it now? Now suppose I tell you that you can make any change in the file that you want, as long as the copyright line says "see accompanying license file" and that file is intact. Can you remove the name? That's the issue here - the copyright owner has given me a license to do various things, including modify the file, and the file contains the copyright line. So, what normally would be illegal may in fact be legal after all. But, the only way to really be sure is to try it and get sued. And if you want to know how the law works in every country, you'd need to be sued in every country. Certainly interested in arguments to the contrary. Rich
[gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > COPYRIGHT > > I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing > on any of the really contentious points here. > > I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the > world that (emphasis mine): > You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF > IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute > such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, > provided that you also meet all of these conditions... > > None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact. True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of a file, although it is generally considered something that you really should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.) > Anybody can therefore alter the copyright line as they wish, as they > have been given explicit permission to do so. They need only comply > with the other terms in the LGPL to do so (the most important being > licensing it under the LGPL and making the source available. Heh, wait, no, you can not do that. You can not modify a copyright line to add your own, without first doing one of the two things I discussed in the beginning. Otherwise, don't you think that all of those big companies that are using Linux and other open source projects would have done something like this already? > In fact, (L)GPL v3 has an optional attribution clause, and the fact > that they made this explicit is because some projects might not want > to give out this authorization. Changing the lines in the comment block in the code files is not what attribution clauses are about at all. I could go into details about copyright, and how it works, and how you need to treat it if you are a programmer, but I'm not a lawyer, and the rules are different in different countries and even states. I have, however, worked with a very large number of lawyers, and companies, and have the basics down, and none of what you say above is really allowed at all, sorry. Also note, if you just remove code from a file, you don't get copyright of the file, which is a fun thing to think about if you are trying to remove features from a product, or doing 'git revert' of specific patchsets. > So, if you want an official ruling from the trustees we would need to > meet/vote on it and perhaps discuss with counsel, but my thinking is > that anybody distributing work under the (L)GPL has waived their right > to be named on the copyright line of any copies distributed by others, Again, no, this is flat out not right. Please discuss with counsel if you disagree and they can go into the details. > and as far as I can tell I have found nothing to the contrary from any > authoritative source. Talk to a copyright lawyer please. I'm sure there is one that the Foundation uses, right? > Again, that's my two cents and not a license for anybody to do > anything. This topic did come up recently with regard to accepting > some other kind of outside work into Gentoo, and as I recall there was > some debate over whether the copyright notices could be changed. I'd > have to dig up the details - I think the issue might have been mooted > before any kind of formal decision was reached... I think this is something that the Foundation's counsel better get set up properly, as it really is a big deal, and can come back to cause big problems if done wrong. I say this as someone who has been part of lawsuits dealing with this type of thing, and as someone who has worked with lawyers on copyright issues for open source projects for a very long time[1]. But as always, talk to a lawyer, I suggest that the Foundation do this to set up the proper guidelines and rules that all Gentoo developers need to follow. That will clear all of this confusion up properly. thanks, greg k-h [1] I've worked with them so much, that I'm a "continuing education" credit for lawyers in the USA when I give one of my various talks about how open source projects are developed, and how the copyright and license issues work within them.
