Mailing List Archive

John Fraizer <syscow@enterzone.net> writes:

| On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
>> > Well, you can do it the other way then:
>> >
>> > Copyright 1996, 97, 98, 99, 2000 Kunihiro Ishiguro
>> > Portions Copyright (C) 2003 The Quagga Project
>> >
>> > on the files that contain submitted modifications.
>>
>> yes, thats possible.
>>
>> but who exactly is 'The Quagga Project'? :)
>
| I'm the Quagga Project. You are the Quagga Project. Ted is the Quagga
| Project. IMHO, everyone who has contributed in the past or contributes in
| the future is the Quagga Project.

We tried this approach in the LyX Project, but after some time we
found it to be just nonsense. Currently we do "Copyright by its
authors" and put a clause on all the authors to a file at the top of
that file.

Unless you register the Quagga Project as some legal entity it has not
real meaning. And unless you actively transfere copyright the
copyright stays with the author (regardless of what copyright
statement you put in the code.)

Also note that GPL != FSF

So unless the product is an official FSF product, then FSF guidelines
and decisions (especially in copyright) has no bearing on other
code/projects/products using the GPL.

--
Lgb

>-----Original Message-----
>From: quagga-users-bounces@lists.quagga.net
>[mailto:quagga-users-bounces@lists.quagga.net]On Behalf Of Lars Gullik
>Bjønnes
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:38 AM
>To: John Fraizer
>Cc: Quagga Users; Paul Jakma; Vincent Jardin
>Subject: [quagga-users 70] Re: [Quagga-users 41] Re: Quagga Copyright
>
>
>John Fraizer <syscow@enterzone.net> writes:
>
>| On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
>>
>>> > Well, you can do it the other way then:
>>> >
>>> > Copyright 1996, 97, 98, 99, 2000 Kunihiro Ishiguro
>>> > Portions Copyright (C) 2003 The Quagga Project
>>> >
>>> > on the files that contain submitted modifications.
>>>
>>> yes, thats possible.
>>>
>>> but who exactly is 'The Quagga Project'? :)
>>
>| I'm the Quagga Project. You are the Quagga Project. Ted is the Quagga
>| Project. IMHO, everyone who has contributed in the past or
>contributes in
>| the future is the Quagga Project.
>
>We tried this approach in the LyX Project, but after some time we
>found it to be just nonsense. Currently we do "Copyright by its
>authors" and put a clause on all the authors to a file at the top of
>that file.
>
>Unless you register the Quagga Project as some legal entity it has not
>real meaning.

>And unless you actively transfere copyright the
>copyright stays with the author (regardless of what copyright
>statement you put in the code.)
>

Sometimes I think the GPL wants people to run their projects this
way just to make it harder for someone to license the software
under a different license than GPL. Sigh.

There is nothing wrong with allowing the copyrights to stay with
the authors as long as you log it. The problem is that people
don't. So you end up with a big project with a few copyrights
on the tops of source files, and pieces that are legally copyrighted
by their authors scattered throughout the code, and no record of
who those authors are, except for an e-mail address that is most
likely unreachable after a few years. Thus the total project
copyright gets totally fragmented and the result is the only
usable license for the entire work is the GPL. Score 1 for the
FSF, score zero for the project if someone infringes on it and
you want to try to defend it.

It is not difficult to ask for a transfer of copyright right
on a nonexclusive basis from an author for a patch or other work
submitted to the Project, and it does not even require a written
agreement. Just because nobody wanted to bother sending the e-mails
to the code authors for nonexclusive copyright use for LyX doesen't
mean that we should do it this way as well.

The main reason all this is coming
up is because the major copyright holder on the code - Kunihiro -
pretty much has to be considered what you would call a hostile
copyright holder. We have to assume that at some point in the
future the Zebra code can be re-licenced to a commercial entity.
If that were to happen you can bet they will want the Quagga
additions and the possibility exists that they might just start
using them without following the GPL and without making mods
available, much as Linksys appears to have done with Zebra and
it's wireless router.

IP Infusion does not have copyright over Zebra or Quagga and
if that company goes away, or Kunihiro leaves it, or some such,
the whole thing can start all over again.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> writes:

| It is not difficult to ask for a transfer of copyright right
| on a nonexclusive basis from an author for a patch or other work
| submitted to the Project, and it does not even require a written
| agreement.

This I am not sure about.

| Just because nobody wanted to bother sending the e-mails
| to the code authors for nonexclusive copyright use for LyX doesen't
| mean that we should do it this way as well.

I cannot really grok this, but I have a feeling that License and
Copyright are being confused.

--
Lgb

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lars Gullik Bjønnes [mailto:larsbj@lyx.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:50 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: John Fraizer; Quagga Users; Paul Jakma; Vincent Jardin
>Subject: Re: [quagga-users 70] Re: [Quagga-users 41] Re: Quagga
>Copyright
>
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> writes:
>
>| It is not difficult to ask for a transfer of copyright right
>| on a nonexclusive basis from an author for a patch or other work
>| submitted to the Project, and it does not even require a written
>| agreement.
>
>This I am not sure about.
>
>| Just because nobody wanted to bother sending the e-mails
>| to the code authors for nonexclusive copyright use for LyX doesen't
>| mean that we should do it this way as well.
>
>I cannot really grok this, but I have a feeling that License and
>Copyright are being confused.
>

No, but they could be by many readers, perhaps you could supply an
explanation of both?

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> writes:

>>I cannot really grok this, but I have a feeling that License and
>>Copyright are being confused.
>>
>
| No, but they could be by many readers, perhaps you could supply an
| explanation of both?

Only in very simple terms:

Copyright - who owns the code
License - what you are allowed to do with it.

Anyway I am not expert in these matters, but I just felt that there
were some confusion in the discussions.

--
Lgb

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> I cannot really grok this, but I have a feeling that License and
>> Copyright are being confused.
>
> No, but they could be by many readers, perhaps you could supply an
> explanation of both?

Before anything else, there is also the issue of 'moral rights'. In the EU
(but not in the US, but then perhaps in other parts of the world) there is a
concept of 'moral rights' for the original author of works. In the UK (the
only place I am reasonably familiar with the law - but not a lawyer) the
moral right to be identified as the author of a work and to protect against
misuse of that work specifically DO NOT APPLY to computer programs. This may
not be the case in other countries that support this concept.

This does not detract from the opportunity, nevertheless, to add attribution
to works while the copyright is held by someone else.

For real details (in the UK), see
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm -
Section 79 'Exceptions to right.' There are also 'Statutory Instruments' and
other legislation that updates this Act.

On the other issues of copyright and license; My limited understanding here
is, trying to be general, where in fact this subject is very specific:

The initial copyright in a work resides by default with the author of a work
unless it is done as part of the normal work of that person - in which case
the first right in the work is that of the employer. The copyright holder
may assign the copyright to someone else (either individual or a company),
but this is *only* valid if done in writing (in the UK at least; copyright
is a property right and requires a signed agreement - I think by all parties
? - to transfer). Copyright may also be held by a group and also
anonymously. For UK specifics, see the act linked above.

A license details what the copyright holder is allowing someone else to do
with the work in question and only apply to those 'acts restricted by
copyright'. If you do not stick to the license, you 'infringe' the
copyright. This is, in most territories, a civil matter - not a criminal
one. In the UK and other territories, counterfeiting and certain other
infringements may be criminal acts and can be actioned as such.

All this stuff is from memory, I am not a legal professional, blah blah
blah.

This complexity is the primary reason I favour the use of BSD-style licenses
over GPL - but I have no great religion over the principles. As the Zebra
code-base is GPL, there is no real way to change the license (but you can
add copyright holders for contributes work) without the consent of the
current copyright holder(s) - so the discussion is mostly moot.

:-)

peter

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Sometimes I think the GPL wants people to run their projects this
> way just to make it harder for someone to license the software
> under a different license than GPL. Sigh.

yep.

if you dont like the licence, you dont have to use it.

> likely unreachable after a few years. Thus the total project
> copyright gets totally fragmented and the result is the only usable
> license for the entire work is the GPL.

why is this a problem?

> Score 1 for the FSF, score zero for the project if someone
> infringes on it and you want to try to defend it.

No, any copyright holder can still defend his right.

> It is not difficult to ask for a transfer of copyright right on a
> nonexclusive basis from an author for a patch or other work
> submitted to the Project,

its lots of paperwork - and almost no gain.

> The main reason all this is coming up is because the major
> copyright holder on the code - Kunihiro - pretty much has to be
> considered what you would call a hostile copyright holder.

And?

> We have to assume that at some point in the future the Zebra code
> can be re-licenced to a commercial entity. If that were to happen
> you can bet they will want the Quagga additions and the possibility
> exists that they might just start using them without following the
> GPL and without making mods available,

Then they will have violated the licence. Kunihiro does not hold
copyright over any substantial contributions to zebra-pj^Wquagga.

> IP Infusion does not have copyright over Zebra or Quagga and if
> that company goes away, or Kunihiro leaves it, or some such, the
> whole thing can start all over again.

no, dont think so.

> Ted

Btw, all this debate about copyright.. can we take it to ZNOG?

http://www.dishone.st/mailman/listinfo/znog

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
Round Numbers are always false.
-- Samuel Johnson

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Mueller [mailto:pmueller@sidestep.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 5:24 PM
>
>What's ZNOG's purpose?
>

Judging by the traffic it's Pauls way of saying:

"I'm bored by this topic please go away"

Ted

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Jakma [mailto:paul@clubi.ie]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 4:41 PM
>
>> Score 1 for the FSF, score zero for the project if someone
>> infringes on it and you want to try to defend it.
>
>No, any copyright holder can still defend his right.
>

In which case the infringer removes the small section of code owned
by the complaining copyright holder and continues infringing against
the bulk of the work. Still score zero. But there's no point in
discussing the bad points of the GPL with a GPL proponent, so I'm
not going to waste any more time on that.

Defense only works for copyright holders that own the bulk of the
copyright over all codefiles in the project. If it worked your way,
the GNU Project wouldn't be telling people to assign their copyrights
over to the FSF.

>> It is not difficult to ask for a transfer of copyright right on a
>> nonexclusive basis from an author for a patch or other work
>> submitted to the Project,
>
>its lots of paperwork - and almost no gain.
>

Untrue. Paperwork is only required if the transfer is exclusive. Look
it up, there's plenty of info on copyright on the Web.

Obviously as code maintainer your going to do whatever the hell you
want, so it is no wonder that to you this is a moot issue.

However if you at least stop listing major patches under Kunihiro's
copyright, I will have accomplished my objective by raising this issue.


Ted

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Judging by the traffic it's Pauls way of saying:
>
> "I'm bored by this topic please go away"

That is perhaps one way of looking at it, yes. :) The situation is
AISI:

- Kunihiro will be the major copyright holder for the foreseeable
future, indeed forever.

- There are also others who hold copyright over minor parts.

Ergo:

- Quagga will have copyright distributed over several people at least
for the foreseeable future

Corollary:

- Talk of trying to assign copyrights to a figurehead or collective
legal entity is pointless, at least for now.

Further, I am happy with distributed copyright. Copyright holders are
always allowed to protect their work. If Quagga's licence is
infringed upon and a holder takes action against the infringer and
wins, then if their work is an important enough part of quagga, then
the infringer will have a problem in desisting but continuing to use
quagga.

Further, centralised copyright - to who? the FSF? Despite being a
firm supporter and believer in the goals of the FSF, I'm not sure i'd
want them to hold all copyright. To some quagga legal entity? Well,
how do you set that up? The people involved are located across the
globe, US, EU, Russia, Georgia, Israel, etc.. far too complicated.
(this assumes that assignment to an informal entity eg just inventing
"The Quagga Project" as an entity has too weak a legal footing to be
of value. IANAL, so i'd go with that assumption to be safe).

NB: an infringer can always still just drop quagga and instead go to
IPInfusion and licence ZebOS.

Anyway, if we just follow a rule that contributors update copyright
notices (or add them, eg new files) as and when appropriate, then we
dont have a problem.

Ie:

- a patch that substantively changes and adds to an existing file
should include an addition to the copyright for the contributor.

- new files should be copyright the contributor (unless they borrow
substantively from existing copyrighted work)

- all contributions should also update the appropriate ChangeLog(s)
and include the contributor's name (and email address). (NB: why do
people never do this? :) )

If we do that, then, presuming work is done on quagga and it
advances, in time the copyright of Quagga should become so diverse
that it should become impractical for anyone to make use of Quagga
under anything but the GPL.

> Ted

regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam@dishone.st
Fortune:
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
-- Henry Kissinger

Irregardless, at least the solution is simple; place "Copyright 2003,
Quagga..." predominately at the top of each file, above any prior
claims. Next year modify the line to "Copyright 2003-2004, Quagga..."
and so on. This will cover all of Quagga's needs (patches and all).



Regards, Peter