OSGeo Holding Copyright

[Rich Steele]

Frank Warmerdam wrote:
 
> Today you indicated that the MapGuide OS project won't be assigning
the
> code copyright to the foundation, is that right?  This was not my
previous
> understanding.  Is there any problem with some projects assigning some
or
> all of the copyright of their project to the foundation if they want?

My understanding is that nobody would be required to assign copyright to
the foundation.  This was discussed at several points in Chicago and I
had thought was a fairly fundamental understanding that copyright was
not required to be contributed to the foundation.

Of course there is no problem with copyright holders transferring their
copyrights to the foundation should they choose to do so, but there is
no such requirement.  If the foundation holds copyright, it certainly
makes it easier for the foundation to relicense the code or to enforce
the copyright against infringers, but there are drawbacks to the
developer to doing so.

The contributor agreement FAQ is instructive here:

"Does the CLA require me to assign the copyright in my developments to
OSGeo? 

No. Unlike the contributor agreements used by some other open source
projects, the CLA does not ask you to transfer ownership of the
copyright in your original work to the foundation. OSGeo's CLA, which is
modeled after the contributor agreement used by the Apache Foundation
and countless other projects, only asks you to grant OSGeo a license to
the code contributions under your intellectual property rights. OSGeo's
intention is to release software distributions as collective works under
an OSGeo copyright, while copyright for all of the individual
contributions to that collective work would remain with the original
author. Thus, you still own the copyright in your original work, and you
are free to license it to third parties under a different license of
your choice - even a proprietary royalty-bearing license, if you so
desired."

Here is Larry Rosen's take, from his free book:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch02.pdf

"Th[e] technique of copyright assignment is generally neither useful nor
necessary, because an open source license can convey all rights as
effectively as an assignment. There are only a few limited occasions
when an assignment is preferable [generally relating to enforcement of
the copyright].... Everything that an open source project needs,
including the rights to make copies, create derivative works, and
distribute the software, is provided by any of the open source licenses
described in this book as readily as by an assignment. Contributors and
the open source
projects that receive those contributions can usually accomplish their
objectives with an open source license instead of an assignment."

> My hope is to assign all the copyright held by me in GDAL to the
> foundation
> and to gently encourage others holding copyright for parts of GDAL to
> assign
> theirs.  As I see it, this makes it easier for the foundation to
relicense
> my code should it be necessary, even if I'm hit by a bus (or in my
case,
> more
> likely drop a tree on my head).  I'm also vaguely hopeful that some
other
> projects might do the same.  Perhaps UMN might assign it's copyright
for
> instance.  In the past I have assigned my copyright in MapServer code
to
> the
> university specifically because I wanted to reduce the number of
copyright
> holders and smooth out any future transitions.
> 
> Of course, I understand that some copyright holders (and projects)
aren't
> interested in this approach, and that is fine.  But I'm hoping it is
not
> precluded.

It certainly isn't precluded, and if you want to do so I don't think
anyone would object (quite the opposite).  And you can also try to
encourage others to do so, but I think many would object to assigning
copyright to the foundation (particularly since the incubation committee
has now voted down even the idea of requiring a contributor license
agreement, which is far less onerous than a copyright assignment).