Comments on: Copyright Assignment http://www.the-source.com/2010/02/copyright-assignment/ Free and Open Source Software News and Opinion Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:09:24 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: saulgoode http://www.the-source.com/2010/02/copyright-assignment/comment-page-1/#comment-219 saulgoode Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:17:38 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=455#comment-219 Thanks for the correction. I will extend my apologies to Mr Meeks -- whose has made some very cogent statements with regard to copyright assignments with which I, for the most part agree. I would prefer that OOo contribution assignments did go to (as I originally thought) a non-profit corporation/foundation, but it is good to see that there is a guarantee that all contributions to the project are guaranteed to be made available under a FSF or OSI license. Thanks for the correction. I will extend my apologies to Mr Meeks — whose has made some very cogent statements with regard to copyright assignments with which I, for the most part agree. I would prefer that OOo contribution assignments did go to (as I originally thought) a non-profit corporation/foundation, but it is good to see that there is a guarantee that all contributions to the project are guaranteed to be made available under a FSF or OSI license.

]]> By: Bertrand http://www.the-source.com/2010/02/copyright-assignment/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Bertrand Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:09:44 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=455#comment-218 I believe you are mistaken about copyright assignments for OpenOffice.org : they go to Sun Microsystems, Inc., as specified in the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA). See for example http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Contributing_Patches http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Sun_Contributor_Agreement I believe you are mistaken about copyright assignments for OpenOffice.org : they go to Sun Microsystems, Inc., as specified in the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA).
See for example
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Contributing_Patches
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Sun_Contributor_Agreement

]]> By: saulgoode http://www.the-source.com/2010/02/copyright-assignment/comment-page-1/#comment-217 saulgoode Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:09:48 +0000 http://www.the-source.com/?p=455#comment-217 It should also be noted that the copyright assignments to the OpenOffice.org project are administrated by <a href="http://www.teamopenoffice.de/" rel="nofollow">Team OpenOffice.org e.V.</a> -- which is the German equivalent of a non-profit, public trust corporation (or at least appears to me as such). The project itself is governed by a ten-member board of elected representatives, of which only one slot is reserved for a Sun (now Oracle?) agent. While, unlike the situation with FSF copyright assignments, there is no guarantee that <i>only</i> Free Software versions of the project will be available, there is a pretty strong legal obligation to <i>at least</i> always provide a Free Software version. Both Michael Meeks and Mark Shuttleworth seem to overlook this distinction with their criticisms of Open Office, and contrasted with the Mono Project's and Canonical's own requirements for copyright assignments (wherein the assignment is made to a for-profit corporation and no promise exists that a Free version of the particular project will be perpetually provided). At a minimum, Canonical and Novell should be aspiring to the behavior of projects which require copyright assignment to a non-profit corporation or foundation, even if those projects optionally offer proprietary licenses for the software. For such non-profits, even if there is no explicit promise of providing Free versions, there is a legal foundation that all assets (including software code) are to be employed for public benefit. It should also be noted that the copyright assignments to the OpenOffice.org project are administrated by Team OpenOffice.org e.V. — which is the German equivalent of a non-profit, public trust corporation (or at least appears to me as such). The project itself is governed by a ten-member board of elected representatives, of which only one slot is reserved for a Sun (now Oracle?) agent.

While, unlike the situation with FSF copyright assignments, there is no guarantee that only Free Software versions of the project will be available, there is a pretty strong legal obligation to at least always provide a Free Software version.

Both Michael Meeks and Mark Shuttleworth seem to overlook this distinction with their criticisms of Open Office, and contrasted with the Mono Project’s and Canonical’s own requirements for copyright assignments (wherein the assignment is made to a for-profit corporation and no promise exists that a Free version of the particular project will be perpetually provided).

At a minimum, Canonical and Novell should be aspiring to the behavior of projects which require copyright assignment to a non-profit corporation or foundation, even if those projects optionally offer proprietary licenses for the software. For such non-profits, even if there is no explicit promise of providing Free versions, there is a legal foundation that all assets (including software code) are to be employed for public benefit.

]]>