Re: "proprietary", was Re: ada on linux

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <8h0jgj$amb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> In article <anhY4.1121$M72.360470@news.pacbell.net>,
>   tmoran@bix.com wrote:
>
> > If Jones writes a program, can he offer it under different
> > licensing arrangement to different people, one of those
> > arrangements being the GPL?
>
> If "Jones" is the sole holder of the copyright on said
> program, yes.

That's entirely correct. It is one special case of the fact
that if you as copyright holder issue a license to someone,
it does not in anyway restrict what YOU can do.

> To avoid this potential route of imprisoning software for the
> Linux kernel, Linus makes sure that everyone who makes a
> significant contribution to a
> kernel source gets a piece of the copyright.

Note that another interesting way of achieving this is by
contract. In the case where a copyright assignment is made
to the FSF, the instrument of assignment includes a requirement
that the FSF make the software available under the GPL for
ever, so that they do NOT have the rights the original
copyright holder would have. This is relevant to CLA, since
the copyright for the basic GNAT technology was assigned
from New York University to FSF.

> That way if someone wanted the Linux kernel distributed under
> a different license, they'd have to get the permission (iow:
> pay off) every copyright holder for every
> kernel source file.

Or argue that a particular copyright holder does not in fact
have a right to protectable code. After all Altai contains
quite a long list of exclusions from what is protectable. Yes
I know that's only third circuit, but in practice it is widely
recognized.

Also there are drawbacks to the multiple copyright holders
situation. Has each of these copyright holders specifically
licensed his work under the GPL. Note that merely putting
a notice in a source file may or may not constitute granting
such a license.

Consider the following situation. Party A holds the copyright
to some code X and releases it under the GPL.

Party B makes a useful modification. He holds the copyright
on this modification. He posts on the net

"I have a really nice modification here to the code X"

That does NOT mean that anyone is free to use this modification
unless party B very explicitly releases the modification under
the GPL.

What is the status of the modified software in B's posession?
Simple, it is a deriviative work, certainly permitted under
the GPL, in which there are two interests A's and B's. The
rub is that unless B agrees to the GPL licensing, the
deriviative work simply cannot be distributed.

One can even imagine B hiring himself out to make the same
change to individual copies of program A, retaining full
rights to this change.

So if you go the multiple copyright holder route, be absolutely
sure that you have proper legal instruments signed by every
contributor. The requirement here is no different than if
a copyright assignment was required.

> I took the same approach with OpenToken, for the same reason.

Have you been careful to get proper legal documents signed
by all contributors. If not, it may well be the case that you
are distributing something that cannot in fact be legally
redistributed.

Legal stuff gets complicated fast :-)

Robert Dewar


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.