Folks,
As announced at the last Wineconf, Jeremy and myself have been working for a few months now with the Software Freedom Law Center on a number of legal issues concerning Wine. We've been mostly quiet about it, so I thought I'd post a status update. There are two major tasks going on at the moment:
1. Code audit
We are doing an audit of the code base, to make sure we have proper records of all contributions, and spot any potentially troublesome code. The goal is to be able to show to people who don't want to dig through the source that we have done our development properly, and that they can use Wine without fear of legal trouble.
Currently, a survey is being sent out to people we have identified as major contributors, so that we can collect some information from them, like employers, license agreements, that sort of thing. This will enable us to build a complete track record for all contributions.
We are still processing the results, at this point the responses we received cover approximately half of the code base (many thanks to everybody who took the time to answer!). We'll be sending the survey to more contributors in the near future to try to get as close to 100% coverage as we can.
2. Non-profit organization
There are many advantages to having a non-profit organization for a project, for instance to allow tax-exempt donations, or hold assets like trademarks. However it's a lot of paperwork to do, so we never went to the trouble of setting one up.
Now the SFLC is starting an organization called the Software Freedom Conservancy, that will be officially launched on Monday. It's basically an umbrella non-profit that provides services to free software projects. By joining that organization, we will get all the advantages of having our own non-profit, without having to do any of the work, so that seems like a good deal...
There will also be the possibility of assigning our copyrights to that organization, which would make it easier to enforce the license, and provide some liability protection for developers. However this will only be done if most developers are comfortable with it, so I'd be interested to hear your feedback on this issue.
There will also be the possibility of assigning our copyrights to that organization, which would make it easier to enforce the license
Copyright assignment in other projects has been tricky, and it can't be done retroactively. It usually requires developers to submit paperwork - we don't really want that .... do we?
thanks -mike
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 22:33 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
There will also be the possibility of assigning our copyrights to that organization, which would make it easier to enforce the license
Copyright assignment in other projects has been tricky, and it can't be done retroactively. It usually requires developers to submit paperwork - we don't really want that .... do we?
Fortunately, in order to enforce the license they don't really need rights to all of it, or even most of it - just rights to substantial portions of the useful stuff. Heck, Alexandre's contributions alone could probably be enough code to cover virtually the entire project.
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:59:49PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 22:33 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
There will also be the possibility of assigning our copyrights to that organization, which would make it easier to enforce the license
Copyright assignment in other projects has been tricky, and it can't be done retroactively. It usually requires developers to submit paperwork - we don't really want that .... do we?
Fortunately, in order to enforce the license they don't really need rights to all of it, or even most of it - just rights to substantial portions of the useful stuff. Heck, Alexandre's contributions alone could probably be enough code to cover virtually the entire project.
(IANAL... just AFAIK:)
To enforce the licence one doesn't need any copyright (asignment) at the work at all. You just need to be appointed by (one of) the copyright holder(s) to enforce it.
Jan
On Saturday 01 April 2006 18:43, Jan Zerebecki wrote:
To enforce the licence one doesn't need any copyright (asignment) at the work at all. You just need to be appointed by (one of) the copyright holder(s) to enforce it.
This is not generally the case. If you don't own the copyright, you cannot enforce it unless: (a) you have been given a contractual right to do so *for value* and join the copyright holder as a party to the action; or (b) you are an insurer who is enforcing the right for insurance purposes. This is something that may vary between jurisdictions, but that is the basic rule in common law jurisdictions.
Scott Ritchie:
Fortunately, in order to enforce the license they don't really need rights to all of it, or even most of it - just rights to substantial portions of the useful stuff. Heck, Alexandre's contributions alone could probably be enough code to cover virtually the entire project.
This is correct - the only reason you would need to own the whole of the copyright is if you wanted to re-license in circumstances or under terms not within the existing licence.
Kai Blin:
I'm living in the EU, where the copyright is split into "usage rights" and "creator's rights" and only the usage rights are transferable. I'm not into that legal stuff too much, so I'd leave that to experts to decide on, but I'd like to see a conclusive explanation on how this will apply to all of us new and old Europeans.
The inalienable right (that is, incapable of alienation by the owner) are moral rights that are unimportant for present purposes. They include things like a right not to have derivative works involve a derogatory treatment of the prior works. These rights also exist to some extent outside of the EU due to laws implementing various copyright convention obligations.
Mike Hearn:
Copyright assignment in other projects has been tricky, and it can't be done retroactively. It usually requires developers to submit paperwork - we don't really want that .... do we?
The requirements for copyright assignment will vary by jurisdiction, but in Australia and the US it must be done in writing signed by the transferor. This does *not* mean it needs to be in the form of a contract (which is the way the FSF do it).
Non-retroactivity merely means that when you assign copyrights you do not transfer the right to take action against breaches prior to the assignment (although there will be a right to take action against further activity that derives from the prior breaches). You can assign copyright at any time *after* the copyright arises.
You cannot generally assign copyright *before* the copyright arises, however, since you cannot make an assignment in law of something that does not yet exist (in Australia the Copyright Act specifically provides for assignment of future copyright where this is done by contract, but AFAIK US copyright law does not). However if you have contracted *for value* to assign a future copyright, a court will normally be willing to force assignment of that copyright if the author refuses to do so (this is where the FSF contracts come in - although there may be issues of whether there is "value" in those), and to prevent anybody else from denying that the copyright was assigned at the time it arose.
A significant gotcha here is that the copyright assignment in each country comes under the law in that country - the copyright in each country is a different legal right. Even if a document purports to assign worldwide copyrights, if it is not in the form required by the law of some countries, then the original copyright holder will retain copyright in those countries.
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 09:58 +1000, Troy Rollo wrote:
This is correct - the only reason you would need to own the whole of the copyright is if you wanted to re-license in circumstances or under terms not within the existing licence.
Even more reason to assign only partly the copyright. That is, only some of us should assign the copyright -- it solves the enforcement bit without giving up all control in terms of re-licensing.
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:58:26AM +1000, Troy Rollo wrote:
On Saturday 01 April 2006 18:43, Jan Zerebecki wrote:
To enforce the licence one doesn't need any copyright (asignment) at the work at all. You just need to be appointed by (one of) the copyright holder(s) to enforce it.
This is not generally the case. If you don't own the copyright, you cannot enforce it unless: (a) you have been given a contractual right to do so *for value* and join the copyright holder as a party to the action; or (b) you are an insurer who is enforcing the right for insurance purposes. This is something that may vary between jurisdictions, but that is the basic rule in common law jurisdictions.
Is there a case possible where neither can be constructed without hassle? Think something like: insurance against GPL violators. And in case of (a): Must one in practice be somehow involved (for example go to court or something) when beeing "joined"?
As it seems doing something like (a) or (b) instead of asignment, would make it as easy to enforce the copyright and not give it away at the same time.
AFAIK for the FSF asigning copyright is for much more than only enforcing copyright but if this works this might be good to pursue in the light of an umbrella-open-source-org as IMHO much more people would be willing to do something like this than asigning copyright...
Jan
On Monday 03 April 2006 11:46, Jan Zerebecki wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:58:26AM +1000, Troy Rollo wrote:
Is there a case possible where neither can be constructed without hassle? Think something like: insurance against GPL violators.
The insurance company has to be able to demonstrate that there is an insurable loss, which is difficult, but it may be possible. There would have to be a premium involved though.
And in case of (a): Must one in practice be somehow involved (for example go to court or something) when beeing "joined"?
Usually in such a case the court will allow the party joined in such circumstances to not participate as long as they agree to consent to any order made - but they have to participate at least to the point of giving such consent on whatever terms the consent has to be given.
However to do this the party bringing the action must have given value (usually, but not necessarily, money) in return for the contractual right to bring the action. Getting this right is not trivial and runs some risk of the arrangement being undone by the court if, for example, the "value" given is insufficient.
Far and away the easiest way to do it is just to assign copyright.
* Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org [31/03/06, 23:27:51]:
- Non-profit organization
There are many advantages to having a non-profit organization for a project, for instance to allow tax-exempt donations, or hold assets like trademarks. However it's a lot of paperwork to do, so we never went to the trouble of setting one up.
Now the SFLC is starting an organization called the Software Freedom Conservancy, that will be officially launched on Monday. It's basically an umbrella non-profit that provides services to free software projects. By joining that organization, we will get all the advantages of having our own non-profit, without having to do any of the work, so that seems like a good deal...
There will also be the possibility of assigning our copyrights to that organization, which would make it easier to enforce the license, and provide some liability protection for developers. However this will only be done if most developers are comfortable with it, so I'd be interested to hear your feedback on this issue.
I'm still unsure about this "assigning the copyright to someone else" thing. I'm living in the EU, where the copyright is split into "usage rights" and "creator's rights" and only the usage rights are transferable. I'm not into that legal stuff too much, so I'd leave that to experts to decide on, but I'd like to see a conclusive explanation on how this will apply to all of us new and old Europeans.
Cheers, Kai
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dimi Paun -
Jan Zerebecki -
Kai Blin -
Mike Hearn -
Scott Ritchie -
Troy Rollo