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

[Ben Greear]

On 04/24/2010 08:21 PM, Bruce Simpson 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 code is accepted into xorp, the committer can basically copyright the
code how they wish...assign to themselves or their employer as desired.
But, it should not automatically be assumed to be copyright by 'xorp-inc',
or whoever bought it's IP.

> 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.

We could add the standard 'this code is not guaranteed to do anything and may
break everything and it's still only the user's fault'
disclaimer somewhere too.  But, that's not got so much to do with copyright
I think.

>
> 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.

Yes, but after my proposed changes go in, there will not be a single copyright
holder anymore, for new code.  So neither I, nor any other entity can arbitrarily
take the new public SVN code private without consent of all copyright holders.
You and all others are welcome to submit your own copyrighted patches to basically
ensure no one can ever take the new public xorp code private again.

Based on the LICENSE file, I think that the new owners of xorp-inc probably could
make a claim of all code currently in xorp svn, including patches I've previously committed.
I'm not going to worry about that..I just want my new changes copyrighted by the author.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb at candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com