Copyrights in file headers
Jonathan Worthington
I keep running accros files that at the top of the file say they are
copyrighted to individual people, then adding stuff to the code as surely
many others have. Am I right in thinking that everything is supposed to be
"Copyright The Perl Foundation"? This is what I've done with any new files
I've added, but what is the policy on this? If there's some doc I should
read, just point me at it.
Just wondering. :-)
Jonathan
Nicholas Clark
I believe that Allison's answer from 3 months ago is still valid:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:03:13PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:42, Will Coleda wrote:
>
> >I was under the impression that for any code to be included in the
> >parrot repository, that the copyright had to be assigned to the Perl
> >Foundation. But there are exceptions to this throughout the
> >repository, even in core files like imcc/main.c (Copyright Melvin
> >Smith). We have a file with a Microsoft copyright in the repository.
> >
> >What's the official policy? Is it documented somewhere in the
> >repository? (If not, can we get it documented?)
>
> The simple answer is yes, everything should be designated as copyright
> The Perl Foundation.
>
> But don't worry about it too much right now. After 12 months of work,
> we just about have the standard policy hammered out with the legal
> folks, and we'll do one big sweeping change sometime in the next few
> months.
>
> Thanks,
> Allison
( http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.internals/30255 )
Nicholas Clark
Joshua Hoblitt
constitute a legal transfer of copyright? Which is what I've been doing
but It's my understanding that copyright can only be transfered by a
written argument. This next statement isn't intending to stir up a
flame-war but does TPF holding the copyrights really matter? AFAIK -
The only value in having a single party holding _all_ the copyrights is
to be able to change the licensing.
Cheers,
-J
--
Allison Randal
> Does sticking "Copyright The Perl Foundation" at the top of a file
> constitute a legal transfer of copyright?
No, there's no such thing as an implicit transfer of copyright rights.
> Which is what I've been doing
> but It's my understanding that copyright can only be transfered by a
> written argument.
Yes, and in fact we won't be doing copyright *transfers* at all. When
you sign the contributor agreement, you'll be signing a copyright
*license*, which still leaves you with the right to use the code
elsewhere. TPF holds the "compilation copyright", that is the
copyright on the distributed collection of code. The individual files
say "Copyright The Perl Foundation" to reflect that fact. Individual
copyrights on included pieces of code are irrelevant from perspective
of the distribution (except that the contributors agree to give TPF
the license to distribute them).
> This next statement isn't intending to stir up a
> flame-war but does TPF holding the copyrights really matter? AFAIK -
> The only value in having a single party holding _all_ the
> copyrights is
> to be able to change the licensing.
The advantage is down-stream, for the people and companies that use
Perl/Parrot. If there isn't a single source of ownership on the
distribution, then legally users need to negotiate with every single
individual contributor to Perl/Parrot to ensure that they have the
right to use it. No-one will do that.
So, with Perl 5, Larry is the compilation owner. The problem with
that is it makes Larry personally liable for any action brought
against Perl (not that that would ever happen, we hope), and a
successful suit could take his house, his car, his savings, etc. (not
that that would ever happen, we hope). With Perl 6/Parrot we decided
putting the burden of liability on the foundation is a better way to
do it. That way the worst that can happen in a legal action is that
someone can take the (limited) resources of TPF (not that that will
ever happen, we hope).
Allison
Nicholas Clark
>
> >Has any FOSS developer ever been found liable (or even sued)?
> >
> >Not that I have any objections to this plan but it might be worth
> >considering that it's much easier to sue a single entity then it is to
> >file a tort against a few tens or hundreds of contributors.
So you don't bother - you file a tort against just one. Divide and conquer.
> Yes, the guy who wrote an open source DVD player for Linux was sued by
> the consortium of companies that own the IP for DVD's. I don't remember
> the result, but the EFF archives should have something on it.
And which would you prefer - some human being bankrupted. Or TPF being
bankrupted? If TPF dies, something else will take over the jobs it does,
and no-one will be made homeless.
Nicholas Clark