[gdal-dev] GDAL license and copyright

Greg Troxel gdt at ir.bbn.com
Mon Jan 18 17:42:18 PST 2016


Aaron Boxer <boxerab at gmail.com> writes:

> I am trying to learn more about how open source projects manage
> copyright of contributors.  I see that various GDAL files have
> different copyright assignees, although they all use the MIT license.

(I'm not trying to counter anything Evan said; he is not only an
authoritative speaker but IMHO said everythign totally right.  I am the
chief licensing geek in pkgsrc, a multi-OS multi-arch packaging system.
This is more than what you asked, but hopefully useful background.)

As always, IANAL, TINLA.  And this is a US-centric view, although I
think not so far off for Europe and many other Berne Convention
countries.

You said "different assignees".  I think you meant "different copyright
holders".  When a person creates a work (writes code, in nerd-speak),
the basic consequence is that they hold copyright, and there is no
assignment involved.  If the code is written within the scope of
employment, then the copyright will be held by the employer, under the
"work for hire" doctrine.

Beyond that ownership at creation, copyright can be assigned by a
contract from the original holder to a new holder. (As an exception,
Europe has the concept of "moral rights" as an element of copyright
which cannot be assigned, but this has so far not been a significant
issue in software.)

Some open source projects ask that copyright be assigned to some entity
(e.g., emacs asks for an assignment to FSF, and will not merge code
until that is done).  Others have a very large number of copyright
holders.

As a packager, I don't care how many copyright holders there are.  What
I look for is a clear license, since without a license, there is no
permission to copy or to create derivative works.  The common practice
of "inbound = outbound", where contributions are only accepted if there
is a license grant equal to the project's outgoing license, both works
well and fits very well with most people's senses of fairness and
reciprocity.

As a contributor, I am happy when I get to keep copyright, not because I
really want to keep it, but because it is easy and does not require
signing something, which usually has additional terms I may not like
(e.g., indemnification).  I do not object conceptually to assigning to a
501(c)3 organization that has promotion of Free Software as a
fundamental goal (e.g. FSF, SFC, ASF).  I am not comfortable assiging to
a company, and object unless the assignment guarantees that the code
will *only* be distributed by them under Free licenses.

Greg, lurker

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20160118/cd8f57bd/attachment.sig>


More information about the gdal-dev mailing list