[Incubator] Transfering Code Copyright - restart

[Jennifer Daehler]

Hi,

Hopefully this input will be helpful.

1.  Project (c) assignment to OSGeo.  

My understanding (based on early conversations with Rich Steele and
based on the draft Contributor License Agreements proposed for OSGeo) is
that the original thinking was that the intellectual property rights to
the code for the various projects would be licensed to OSGeo by all
authors of the code, rather than assigned.  License and assignment are 2
different things and each model has pros and cons.  A number of open
source projects do require assignment, and a number (such as Apache)
follow the license model.  I would recommend reviewing the FAQs on the
wiki at  http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Contributor_Agreement to help
understand the distinction between the 2.  It appears that the draft
Contributor Agreements originally proposed by Rich have been removed
from the wiki -- can we put them back up for consideration?

Personally, I'm not certain I would have a strong preference for one
model over the other, as mentioned both have pros and cons.  However, I
often get the sense that contributors prefer a license model over
assignment because license model appears less intrusive -- OSGeo is not
"taking" anything away from the contributor.  Each contributor keeps
their rights in the code they contribute and they give OSGeo a broad
enough license (with some common sense restrictions) to enable OSGeo to
license the code out as part of the applicable open source project.

I would strongly suggest administratively that it would be easiest to
decide one model or the other and be consistent across projects.  In
this way, we aren't guessing which regime a given project is following.
That much said, there isn't a hard and fast rule that would dictate that
all projects have to follow one model.  If there was a good reason for a
project to be an exception, I suppose that would be OK.  But, again, I
would really recommend applying a consist approach across projects.  I
think your contributors would appreciate that too -- especially if they
contribute to more than one project.

In the case of GeoTools, you are correct that copyright can't be held by
a non-entity.  I presume any assignment to a non-entity would be deemed
void (though I'm not sure there's caselaw on this point).  Assignments
must be in writing and signed in order to be enforceable (and they
actually have to affirmatively say "[author] assigns") -- and so if
proper assignments were never done, then any presumed assignment would
be void.  So based on what you are describing below, I would assume that
the original authors would still own the intellectual property rights to
the code they wrote.  In order for OSGeo to license the code under a
project, OSGeo must have the right to grant these licenses.  OSGeo can
get these rights in 2 ways:  either the authors assign their rights to
OSGeo or the authors license their rights to OSGeo (using, for example,
the form of Contributor License that was formerly on the wiki).  Either
way, the authors have to sign something.  

Given that there is some ambiguity around the identity of contributors
to GeoTools and whether we can reach them to put in place a license (or
assignment), then my recommendation is that we have to make a best
effort to identify and contact them.  We should make a good faith
attempt to identify any "mystery code" and we may need to evaluate
whether such code should be excised from the codebase.

2.  Documentation license.

I'm not sure that I understand the nature of the documentation and so
I'm not sure I understand the issue.  Can you elaborate?

Best regards,
Jennifer

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Warmerdam (External) 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:03 AM
To: incubator at incubator.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Incubator] Transfering Code Copyright - restart

Jody Garnett wrote:
> Jennifer Daehler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Which issue was related to legal and is pending?  -- sorry to join
the
>> conversation mid-stream. 
>>   
> GeoTools has a number of questions:
> - project (c) assignment to OSGEO

Jody / Jennifer,

I think one of the issues was a need for template copyright assignment
letters.  Also, who actually holds the copyright of GeoTools code now
is a somewhat vague since the code all indicates the "GeoTools PSC",
though
such a thing does not legally exist and no proper assignment was ever
done.

I am thinking that we would try and get all substantial known
contributors
to GeoTools, including all current members of the PSC and all module
owners
to sign an assignment document assigning all their copyright holdings
within
the GeoTools code base.

Realistically this won't truely be everyone with a copyright interest
in the code base, but it seems like the best we can do.  And I can't see
someone coming out of the woodwork in the future to complain since we
are still following the original intent of vesting the copyright in the
GeoTools PSC.

If some contributors explicitly refuse (as opposed to being
uncontactable)
we might need to make some effort to retain them as copyright holders on
specific modules too.  For now this doesn't matter too much since we
aren't trying to change the license or anything that would require
copyright
holder approval.  But it could complicate things in the future.

Does this seem reasonable?

> - project documentation license (this is where we are stuck,
apparently 
> something that allows OSGEO to maintain the docs in good faith is what

> is requested)

Is the question what is a good license to use for documentation?  OSGeo
has been trying to use the "Create Commons Attribution ShareAlike
License"
for the wiki and web site.  I'm not well versed in any possible issues
with
having GeoTools documentation just living under the LGPL.  Obviously
some
of it's language would not apply well to documentation, but I don't know
if
there is a big issue there.

> These seem to be the final items holding GeoTools back.
> 
> Here is the part of the thread that was obscure:
>>> A couple meetings ago we wanted to know how to peruse assign (c) of 
>>> the GeoTools codebase to the OSGEO foundation, my understanding was
this
>>> had to be taken to the board for direction.

The part that had to go to the board was a statement of principle that
the
board would defer to the GeoTools PSC for matters related code assigned
to
the foundation on behalf of GeoTools.  I have an action item to prepare
a
formal statement on this, and get it approved.  But please be assured
that is
already the intent.   Hopefully this will not be a blocking issue if you
give the foundation board the benefit of the doubt for having good
intentions.
If not, a statement of principle doesn't really help that much since the
board could just reverse it in the future.

The action item is still on me.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,
http://osgeo.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: incubator-unsubscribe at incubator.osgeo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: incubator-help at incubator.osgeo.org