1 |
An interesting idea presented itself this evening after listening to a |
2 |
description in #gentoo-dev of a minor author-developer conflict regarding |
3 |
giving credit to the original author of an ebuild, which had been heavily |
4 |
rewritten by one of the developers: |
5 |
|
6 |
Having read Gentoo's copyright policies and knowing that |
7 |
they're /unquestioningly/ followed, I should submit an ebuild (being not |
8 |
bound by a copyright assignment agreement) and then claim rights on it. |
9 |
Perhaps if I were to initiate litigation against Gentoo, alleging that it was |
10 |
falsely claiming copyright ownership over my work, the legal action would |
11 |
facilitate the developers into abiding by their own copyright assignment |
12 |
policies. |
13 |
|
14 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/ |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
Quite frankly, I don't believe it's very likely that a legal entity will |
18 |
initiate such litigation; unfortunately, in the rare event that litigation |
19 |
did occur, it could cause a legal mess that would likely end in an |
20 |
undesirable fashion. There are a number of factors to consider here. The |
21 |
below assume that the submitting user has not signed a CAA: |
22 |
|
23 |
First, licensing: |
24 |
If a user submitted an ebuild containing the GPL licensing notice, Gentoo |
25 |
could rightfully use and modify the ebuild as it required, distributing it as |
26 |
needed. On the other hand, if a developer actually committed an ebuild |
27 |
without that licensing statement (or added it to the file on their own accord |
28 |
prior to it being committed), Gentoo would have absolutely no right to use, |
29 |
modify or distribute such a work. In such circumstances, the author could |
30 |
order the ebuild to be removed from the tree. One ebuild may not be of great |
31 |
importance, however imagine if it was thirty ebuilds, or perhaps more. What |
32 |
would happen if it were hundreds of ebuilds? |
33 |
|
34 |
Second, ownership: |
35 |
Assuming that a contributed ebuild is submitted with an enclosed GPL licensing |
36 |
"stamp," normal developer-use (thereby implying modification and |
37 |
distribution) of the file could occur-- I would surmise that this is a vastly |
38 |
more common occurrence than the former example. While it has less potential |
39 |
to impact the end-users of Gentoo, the author of such an ebuild could force |
40 |
Gentoo to cease claiming ownership of the file in the standard, "Copyright X |
41 |
Gentoo Foundation," notice. Ultimately, this might force the ebuild to be |
42 |
modified to give proper credit, which is not an enormously difficult issue |
43 |
for a developer to correct. |
44 |
|
45 |
What does concern me, however, is that such contributions might be working |
46 |
themselves into works other than the ebuilds, being Gentoo's made-in-house |
47 |
software, written articles and project resources. Again, the author might be |
48 |
able to force Gentoo to cease claiming ownership over non-assigned work, |
49 |
though more importantly, this limits _Gentoo's_ ability to enforce the |
50 |
integrity of their work. |
51 |
|
52 |
If a user were to begin illegally using a derivative version of Portage in |
53 |
violation of Gentoo's copyrights (whether it be licensing violations or |
54 |
otherwise), the potential for foreign code existence suddenly becomes |
55 |
critical to the defense of the software. I can only imagine the ease at which |
56 |
a defense attorney could argue to a court that Gentoo only haphazardly |
57 |
requires copyright assignment from its contributors, and is therefore |
58 |
unaccountable for its software, or portions thereof-- how they would need to |
59 |
prove that each and every single line of code was under their ownership. It |
60 |
may very well be that some sections of code could be found unaccountable, |
61 |
depriving Gentoo of its party interest in such segments. |
62 |
|
63 |
In this way, the Linux kernel is open to abuse. As IBM is teaching SCO, |
64 |
portions of code that you own cannot be illegally used under terms contrary |
65 |
to that of the license under which they are released. Unfortunately, IBM can |
66 |
only claim rights to and defend the code that it personally contributes. For |
67 |
all of the other code, each individual contributor is responsible for |
68 |
defending their work against abuse, which is the reason that some projects |
69 |
opt to require copyright assignment to a single entity in a collaborative, |
70 |
open-source development environment. |
71 |
|
72 |
Arguing whether it's appropriate to assign copyrights is not within the scope |
73 |
of this message, but if Gentoo is planning to continue under the mandate of |
74 |
requiring contributors to assign copyrights, then there has to be no |
75 |
acceptance for not following that rule. Either you assign copyrights |
76 |
religiously, always and under every possible set of circumstances pending |
77 |
death by infringement, FUD and the HURD people, or you don't assign |
78 |
copyrights at all. |
79 |
|
80 |
My personal belief is that copyright assignment is not necessary for ebuilds, |
81 |
as they have a short shelf-life and are relatively trivial to replace if a |
82 |
problem arises. The written works, software and all other project material, |
83 |
in contrast, deserve nothing less than the uncompromised and genuine legal |
84 |
protection that would be available through a copyright assignment policy that |
85 |
was followed with respect by the developers and contributors. |
86 |
|
87 |
Heated flames and constructive discussion are welcome. |
88 |
|
89 |
|
90 |
-- |
91 |
Anthony Gorecki |
92 |
Ectro-Linux Foundation |