violating a license b4 product release
eostermueller at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 5 06:50:18 UTC 2003
Thank you all for your attention on this question. My
main concern (which you've addressed) is holding onto
rights for the code I've written myself :- ).
Does the GPL (or any other license) address the
question of _code acceptance policies_? Where
--- "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> on Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:55:07PM -0800, Ian Lance
> Taylor (ian at airs.com) wrote:
> > Erik Ostermueller <eostermueller at yahoo.com>
> > > I'm planning on releasing an open-source
> > > probably under the GNU license.
> > >
> > > Must I do anything in particular to insure that
> I can
> > > safely/legally violate the terms of the license
> > > to the product release?
> > Assuming that you hold the copyright on the
> product, there is nothing
> > you need to do. The GPL and similar copyleft
> licenses place
> > restrictions on people who receive copies of the
> program: they specify
> > what some random person is permitted to do with
> the information which
> > they have received. These licenses do not place
> restrictions on the
> > copyright holder.
> > Of course this does not apply if you do not hold
> the copyright on the
> > program, or if you assign that copyright to
> somebody else. The FSF
> > often encourages GNU developers to assign
> copyright on their programs
> > to the FSF. However, you do not need to do this
> in order to use the
> > GPL yourself.
> Significantly, however, if you wish to accept and
> incorporte code
> contributions from others, you'll need to secure
> rights to license
> *those* works under terms of your chosing.
> Actually, you'll probably want to secure a copyright
> statement of some
> form for any code you source directly from a
> contributor, if you're a
> business. The FSF actually secures a grant of
> copyright (all interest)
> from the author of contributions, then licenses the
> work back to the
> author. The main argument for doing this is to
> allow the FSF to pursue
> infringement cases with greater authority, and
> access to remedies not
> otherwise available. Or so Eben will tell you (and
> I generally believe
> - You own your own work. Licensing terms don't
> apply to you (you
> don't have to grant yourself rights).
> - You don't own other people's work (barring
> conditions under which
> you do -- works for hire, etc., and even then
> you'll want to cover
> contingencies). If you plan on doing funky
> stuff with your license,
> you'll likely want to get this in writing.
> Generally, this falls under the distinction of free
> software _licensing_
> models (e.g.: what license(s) do I choose for my
> work) and free
> software _code acceptance policies_ (what terms do I
> request for code I
> plan to incorporate with my official release). It's
> a distinction
> that's been made fuzzy by an awful lot of loose
> talk, misunderstanding,
> and likely intentional deception.
> IANAL, TINLA, YADA.
> Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>
> What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
> Moderator, Free Software Law Discussion mailing
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss