[Xorp-users] RFC: Explicitly note that new code contributions are copy-righted by the submitter.

[Mark Handley]

I think you've confused the license and the copyright.  The current
LICENSE file wording could be interpreted as granting copyright of new
code to XORP, Inc.  This is not the intent, so we need to change the
LICENSE file to avoid this being the case.  That's all Ben's wording
does.  It makes no change to the use of GPL.  Obviously you can only
license something if you own the copyright, so that's the root of
authority - the existence of a license does not by itself affect the
ownership of copyright, so the use of the GPL on the existing XORP
code does not affect the copyright of new contributions.

As for re-licensing, if the copyright is owned by a single entity,
that entity cannot revoke the GPL, but they can license under
different terms to anyone they see fit.  Only the copyright holder can
do that.  If the copyright is owned by multiple parties, no single
party can license under different terms any part they don't own the
copyright to.  So whoever now owns the XORP, Inc rights cannot license
any additional new contributions under any license other than the GPL
without the express permission of the copyright holders of those
contributions.

 - Mark

On 25 April 2010 04:21, Bruce Simpson <bms at incunabulum.net> wrote:
> On 04/23/10 18:24, Ben Greear wrote:
>> I propose to update the LICENSE file to explicitly note that contributions
>> on or after today are copyright by the submitter unless otherwise specified
>> in the commit message and/or committed code.
>>
>> This ensures that no single entity can re-license XORP or otherwise
>> take changes in the public svn tree and use or relicense them in ways not compatible
>> with the current license scheme (GPL, LGPL, other) without consent
>> of all committers from today on.  I believe this will help make
>> xorp stronger and it will certainly make me happier about committing
>> my changes to the public svn tree.
>>
>
> I'm not an IP lawyer, but: I'm afraid it does none of those things,
> other than make the limited use of the GPL herein, more explicit. FWIW
> NetBSD make it explicit that diff chunks are subject to their license.
>
> How contract programmers are normally retained, in the wider world, is
> on a works-for-hire basis; their employer retains the copyright. So a
> side-effect of this change, would be to force the copyright situation to
> be made explicit, by 3rd parties who may seek to release code as part of
> the open-source project. If their code is new, they need not use the
> existing license.
>
> If they merely use XORP, and do not re-distribute it, they are still
> free to use it however they like (including internal modification).
> Products constructed merely by the use of XORP, don't fall under the GPL.
>
> I think it's a mistake to infer that a group of software developers, has
> any particular recognition in IP law, and I draw your attention to the
> GPL actually opening individual committers to risk, as it has no
> indemnity clause.
>
> In any event, I believe that whilst keeping the copyright for your own
> changes is fine, and whilst the code may be redistributed under the
> terms of the GPLv2 and LGPL, the copyright holder for XORP as a whole is
> in fact entitled to relicense the code at any time.
>
> However, the new owners of the XORP intellectual property, have not yet
> stepped forward.
>
> So this proposed change is a no-op. I neither condone nor criticise it
> apart from the above.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-users mailing list
> Xorp-users at xorp.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users
>