Re: GNU Copyright Assignment

[Paul Fisher]

"John Keiser" <address@hidden> writes:

> Etienne has brought up some concerns about GNU copyright assignment
> being required before any contributions are made to the project, and
> I have some concerns as well (albeit different ones).

Copyright assignments are not always required.

Changes that are not significant do not require any paperwork.
Other options include disclaiming your changes and putting them into
the public domain, or in certain cases, giving the FSF a suitable
nonexclusive license for the contributed work.

> People who would otherwise contribute are being turned off, not
> because they don't *want* to assign copyright, but because it's
> *hard* and IMO it seems like unnecessary lawyer bullshit has been
> forced into what was once an uninhibited, exciting process.

The FSF did not author copyright law as it exists today.  The GNU
project would prefer not to have to keep paperwork on contributions.
However, paperwork is necessary to make sure the GNU project complies
with intellectual property laws, and in the case of assigning
copyright, it allows them to easily go after software hoarders of
modified GNU programs.

The only real solution to stop the requirement of paperwork is to
change existing copyright laws -- if we ignore copyright law, we can,
and have been in the past, get burned.

People and projects can choose to ignore intellectual property laws,
but this is something that the GNU project is not willing to do.

All FSF-owned projects have a very well maintained paper trail of all
contributors, what work they contributed, and that the FSF is legally
able to redistribute their contributions.

> 1. Allow contributions without assignment of copyright.

This is possible for non-significant changes, and for people that wish
to disclaim their changes.

> 2. Make the assignment of copyright easier by going electronic.

For US contributors, this might be a viable option.  I've been doing
what I can to see this move forward.

> 3. As a temporary compromise, perhaps up the # of lines required to
> call a patch "substantial."

Generally, more than 15 lines is considered substantial.

> 5. If nothing else, make a "pending patch archive" so that people
> can make contributions that aren't accepted yet, and so it stays
> fresh in our minds.

For anything that requires paperwork, I keep track of those pending
changes, and let those involved know once the paperwork arrives.

> Can we really accept huge patches from Intel, for example?

Yes.  Intel has assigned their copyright to the FSF on numerous
occasions -- many other large companies have done the same.

Signing a piece of paper and mailing it in, is not an over complicated
task.  If you assign all future changes and enhancements to a project,
you only have to do it once.

Assigning copyright to the FSF allows the FSF to redistribute that
code under free terms, but allows the contributor to use his code in
anyway he wants to (even in proprietary ways).  The assignment terms
are not overly restrictive, and help clear up legal questions
regarding a codebase -- especially when there are many many
contributors over many years.