[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Copyright issues

[Jason Etheridge]

On Jan 19, 2008 1:41 PM, Scott McKellar <mck9 at swbell.net> wrote:
> No code here -- this post is about legal issues.

Hi Scott,

Thanks for bringing this up.  I'll try to clarify things here and we
can work to make sure things are clear in the source code itself and
on the project website.

> According to the home page at http://open-ils.org/, Evergreen is
> licensed under the GPL.  Which GPL?  The home page doesn't say, and
> it isn't easy to find out.  This information should be easier to
> find.

Right, this should be easier to find.  The intent has always been GPL
v2 or a later version (as defined by the Free Software Foundation).

> In the source code, where the licensing is mentioned, it refers to
> GPL version 2 or later, at the user's option.  I've only looked at
> the C code.  I don't know if the non-C code is licensed the same
> way.

It is.  Explicit licenses are better than implied licenses, and we'll
go through and put GPL headers on everything that needs it.

> (I am as guilty as anyone in this regard.  I have never thought to update any copyright notices in my patches.)

Yeah, this isn't strictly required this day and age (in the US), but
we can do that.

> These are rhetorical questions, and I don't really need the answers.
> The point is that Equinox and GPLS need to be very explicit with each
> other about copyright ownership.  I wouldn't want to see them descend
> into the kind of copyright dispute that we have seen between SCO and
> Novell, for example.

Right, everything is very explicit from a contractual standpoint as
far as Equinox and its customers are concerned.  In general, when
Equinox does development work for someone, that client owns the
copyright to the work (and can relicense it, etc.), but there is a
stipulation that the work must be released to Equinox and the
community under an appropriate open source license.

> Who will have standing to file suit over copyright infringement?  Whoever sues must have clear title to the copyrights.

This is one of those things you'll always need to revisit with a
lawyer if you ever decide to sue someone for copyright infringement.
I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion (speaking from a US perspective),
if you own copyright in even a portion of Evergreen, and someone
infringes on it, you can sue them and make them stop (you're entitled
to copyright protection even if you don't register until right before
you sue).  Now, the Free Software Foundation's rationale for
collecting copyrights is that it makes it easier to litigate and get
the most reward/damages (because it's easier if you can register the
work as a whole instead of piecemeal).  Since GPLS owns the majority
of copyright in Evergreen, a lawsuit from them would be more
effective.  If an evil vendor were to "steal" Evergreen, and a single
developer with copyright in the software were to sue the vendor, the
vendor could just rip out the parts belonging to that developer (and
hope that GPLS wouldn't come along and sue them next).

[contributors and copyright]
> Evergreen's policy appears to be similar to that of the Linux kernel.

Right.  We have never received or expected a transfer of rights from
contributors.  It may not be the most effective policy for litigation
(though it works for Linux), but I suspect it'll be the best one for
bringing in developers.

Thanks!

--
Jason Etheridge
 | VP, Community Support and Advocacy
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  jason at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com