[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sunday 18 December 2005 4:48 pm, Simon Waters wrote: > Nah, that is just the "linux" approach (or how Linus runs the kernel). You might be surprised just how many packages follow the same approach. Of the ones with which I am currently involved, only one uses FSF copyright assignment - and even that is incomplete. > The FSF expect copyright assignment to them They recommend it but it's not particularly common. It is certainly not a requirement. They don't even require it if a project is to be hosted on the savannah.gnu service, despite there being a non-gnu server too. > on GNU project code > (presumably including GNU Cash?) No. GnuCash copyright is assigned to each developer with CVS/SVN access who has modified each particular file. There is an AUTHORS file that provides the details en-masse via the GUI. The only 'groups' identified in the source are one from Gnumeric and one from Gnome. It is up to each developer to decide at what point they personally consider that their contributions are of sufficient significance (measured in whatever way they feel appropriate) to warrant a copyright statement under their own name. Some files have 6 or more copyright declarations, others 1 - I'd say most have 3. Some overlap in years, some are sequential. Generally whoever creates the file gets first shout, anyone who modifies a "significant" portion gets a secondary listing. To narrow it down any further, you'd have to check the ChangeLog and cvs/svn diffs/changesets to see who committed which changes and whether the changes were contributed or their own. > , so they can change the licence > whenever they like. There is virtually 0% chance of anyone ever changing the licence of gnucash because getting consent is extremely unlikely amongst such a range of people who contributed over a range of times. Some may not even be contactable anymore. > (Although of coure they could also rewrite the GPL > and use the "and later" clause as well). Anyone is free to do that, it's not down to just the FSF. Whosoever distributes gnucash is free to choose whether to use GPL v2 or any later version. > In practise I would recommend no one ever start a "BIG" free software > project without expecting copyright assignments from contributors, Do you mean that contributors are expected to assign their copyright to the FSF? There seem to be very few projects that use such a requirement. > precisely because it would allow them to issue the code under different > licences in future. The GPL v2 (and later) may be fine currently, but > the appearance of GPL v3 (draft expected mid January) could create > circumstance where people wish they had been more careful with copyright > assignment. Most projects seem happy with that situation - many of the ones with which I am involved would see this as a powerful advantage of the GPL in that it ensures that the project will remain under the GPL. "Developed under the GPL, you have no need to worry about obsolescence: GnuCash will always be there for you. " http://www.gnucash.org/ That is the banner under which all contributions are accepted and all development work takes place. I know that none of the current developers would ever agree to a change of licence so the assurance above is fine until at least 50 years after the death of the last one of us! :-) (copyright duration does vary between countries and many developers are from the USA so it may well be a lot longer than 50yrs.) "QOF is free software licenced under the GNU GPL, not LGPL. This means that code which requires QOF to run must also be GPL because QOF is not loaded as a module; the test application as it is actually run includes the QOF library and must therefore be licenced under the GPL." ... "There is no prospect of QOF being relicenced to make it compatible with proprietary software, so please do not ask as the refusal may offend." http://qof-gen.sourceforge.net/#free > Of course the killer, is that any GPLed project could in principal use > any GPL'ed code (or compatible), which creates the possibility to > "borrow" other GPLed code without asking for assignment. But that is a > one way street in terms of licencing. GnuCash uses a lot of such code. It's not quite a one-way, it just means that the number of people required to give consent balloons out of all proportion. We retain the previous copyright notices - as we are required to do by the GPL. GPL code cannot be re-assigned without permission. Getting permission means not being able to update the code from the original project using automated means, we'd have to wait and check if any new declarations were made and ask each and every person again. Simply not worth doing. > Uniformity of copyright is thus something that can start pure, and > become more complex with time, but it is worth trying to maintain purity > to avoid the GPL deadend street. I disagree. Uniformity of copyright is not even desirable, let alone achievable. Yes it can start pure - if there is a single developer working alone - but that's no different to a proprietary project. The benefit of free software is that it's so easy to incorporate and acknowledge the contributions of others in the community - you have to have a very good reason before requiring copyright assignment because such a restriction can fatally weaken contributor motivation. I'm more than happy to add a copyright acknowledgement assigned to anyone who files an acceptable and significant patch with a bug report against any of my projects. Even a typo gets a mention in the ChangeLog. I would love to see a long list of names in the AUTHORS file of each project. Even better to have a significant majority of files with at least two copyright attributions. > Remember the GPL isn't that old in > copyright terms, and may not be the "best of all possible licences", > where all include all time. So improve what we have, there is no need for a fork. Personally, I respect the enormous effort going into GPLv3 and I respect the integrity and skills of those who are doing the work. IMHO, the GPL is, by far, the best software licence of all that currently exist, anywhere - and I've studied a few. I see no reason why that should not continue because if any "better" licence was ever to come along, it would have to be compatible with the GPL to even be deemed "better". The GPL is my gold standard. Anything incompatible with the GPL is inferior, by definition. Freedom comes first, if it's free then I'll consider it in a comparison against the GPL. If it is not even free, I will not consider it. I've said this before, if Windows was under the GPL and GNU/Linux was under a Microsoft-style EULA, I'd be using Windows (or maybe OSX). :-) The GPL is the only assurance we can have that GNU/Linux will remain free. Under the GPL, GNU/Linux can never become non-free so it would always be a comparison of Windows under the GPL and GNU/Linux under the GPL - in which case I'd choose GNU/Linux. > Some projects have also used GPLed code to implement features, but > maintained a clear API, and later reimplemented the code providing that > functionality to avoid being tied to the "licence"/"copyright > assignment" in future. That is an immense amount of wasted effort. Possibly OK if the code came from a GPL-compatible licence and you want to have the entire project under one licence but still, but is it really worth it? Remember, you cannot include non-GPL compatible source code into a GPL program so you are only ever changing between GPL-compatible licences. Now if you're talking about the LGPL or modules that are not linked against any GPL code at runtime, completely different matter. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpBFAWM9VrT5.pgp
Description: PGP signature