[OT] Open Source Business Issues

[Robert Myers]

Greetings,

In another thread, George raised some issues concerning the business
aspects of open source software.

Novell has a copyright assignment form that explicitly asks
contributors to warrant that the code they are contributing is not
encumbered by third party rights:

http://ftp.novell.com//pub/forge/evolution/docs/copyright_form.pdf

<quote>

7. As far as you know, you have the legal right to make this copyright
assignment.

8. If your employer(s) or others (“Third Parties”) generally have
rights to some intellectual property that you create,
you have permission to make this copyright assignment on behalf of
such Third Parties, the Third Parties have
waived such rights, or the Third Parties have no such rights with
respect to the Assigned Contributions.

</quote>

I don't know how much good that would do anyone against the likes of
SCO or Microsoft. In any case, there is apparently still not a
required release of copyright for contributions to the Linux kernel:

http://lwn.net/Articles/105569/

As to the volunteer nature of Linux, Business week says:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918001_mz001.htm

< quote>

Put bluntly, Linux has turned pro. Torvalds now has a team of
lieutenants, nearly all of them employed by tech companies, that
oversees development of top-priority projects. Tech giants such as IBM
(IBM ), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), and Intel (INTC ) are clustered around
the Finn, contributing technology, marketing muscle, and thousands of
professional programmers. IBM alone has 600 programmers dedicated to
Linux, up from two in 1999. There's even a board of directors that
helps set the priorities for Linux development.

</quote>

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

In any case, there is apparently still not a required
release of copyright for contributions to the Linux kernel:

Should there be? Like GNU projects,
so that the FSF can go fight infringement?

The answer isn't obvious. Enforcement takes money and standing.
Both are quite available for the Linux kernel. (Except to RMS)
I'm more worried about subversion -- Linus goes bankrupt on
intoxicating American credit card debt (serious drug, that) or
intoxicated American tort law (someone slips on his daughter's
toy). Then SCO purchases the kernel copyright at auction.

Put bluntly, Linux has turned pro. Torvalds now has a team of
lieutenants, nearly all of them employed by tech companies,
that oversees development of top-priority projects. Tech giants
such as IBM (IBM ), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), and Intel (INTC )
are clustered around the Finn, contributing technology, marketing
muscle, and thousands of professional programmers. IBM alone has
600 programmers dedicated to Linux, up from two in 1999. There's
even a board of directors that helps set the priorities for
Linux development. [BusinessWeek]

Journalistic hyperbole. They reliably get it wrong.

Linux never turned anything it wasn't to start with. That "Board
of Directors" is purely advisory, without any coersive power
whatsoever. If IBM or HPQ want to develop code, great. If they
want to GPL it and offer it for the kernel, even better. But Linus
& the maintainers decide. Anyone is also free to fork the kernel.
Unlike *BSD, this hasn't happened and there maybe something about
the stickiness of the GPL which causes rifts to heal faster.

-- Robert

 

[Douglas Bollinger]

The answer isn't obvious. Enforcement takes money and standing. Both are
quite available for the Linux kernel. (Except to RMS) I'm more worried
about subversion -- Linus goes bankrupt on intoxicating American credit
card debt (serious drug, that) or intoxicated American tort law (someone
slips on his daughter's toy). Then SCO purchases the kernel copyright at
auction.

<snip>

Interesting post, but you really got to learn the difference between a
copyright and a trademark. Linus owns the trademark to Linux:

http://www.linuxmark.org/

But the copyright on the kernel is GPL and is "owned" by all the
contributors to the kernel.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Interesting post, but you really got to learn the difference between
a copyright and a trademark. Linus owns the trademark to Linux:

Thank you. I'm very aware of the difference, and rememeber
the trademark dispute as that guy registered Linux and was
"persuaded" to sign it over. I was addressing the OPs concern
that no-one person owned the copyright by showing what could
happen if the logical person (Linus) actually did have title.

The same thing might happen with the trademark, but this
is of much less concern. The code would still live.

But the copyright on the kernel is GPL and is "owned"
by all the contributors to the kernel.

Quite so. I don't see this as a bad thing, as the OP did.

-- Robert

 

[Robert Myers]

Thank you. I'm very aware of the difference, and rememeber
the trademark dispute as that guy registered Linux and was
"persuaded" to sign it over. I was addressing the OPs concern
that no-one person owned the copyright by showing what could
happen if the logical person (Linus) actually did have title.

The same thing might happen with the trademark, but this
is of much less concern. The code would still live.


Quite so. I don't see this as a bad thing, as the OP did.

How did you conclude that? I actually don't have an opinion, and I
don't see that I even implied one. A side effect of the copyright
assignment I cited is to provide an attestation that the contribution
is not encumbered by third party rights, which was the issue George
raised. You could as well demand such an attestation without asking
for a copyright assignment.

RM

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

How did you conclude that? I actually don't have an
opinion, and I don't see that I even implied one.

RM wrote in OP:
This sandwiched between "Novell requires copyright assignment"
and "Linux is business now" made me infer you were arguing
that Linux is biz & should be like Novell wrt assignment.
Sorry if I misinterpreted.

A side effect of the copyright assignment I cited is to provide an
attestation that the contribution is not encumbered by third party
rights, which was the issue George raised. You could as well demand
such an attestation without asking for a copyright assignment.

See GPL v2.0 section 7. If that isn't strong enough for you,
you're probably out-of-luck. "Demanding" anything is part
of a negotiation, and that depends entirely on what one wants
that the other can give and achieving mutual motivation.

Asking for an attestation that something is free from 3rd
party rights is a bit of a canard. You're asking someone
to prove a negative. The best they can say is they're not
aware of any third party claims. Which they in effect do by
placing their copyright upon it without others or attribution.

Nothing is risk-free. MS could easily be violating claims.
They'll squash those in Court. Linux rapidly excises and
replaces any potentially offending code. Personally,
I think the Linux approach is more socially responsible.

-- Robert