Re: [Fsfe-uk] Funding Open Source

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 00:42, Paul wrote:
> This sounds ideal and definately the way forward. Question is, with
> Linux developers spread over many miles (for Scribus, Franz is in
> Germany, Peter in the US and I'm in the UK), how will you be able to
> fund it (I'm talking more the logistics involved with tax - or would
> people be expected to be classed as self employed but grant maintained
> [if you see what I mean])?

There would not be any particular special tax dispensation you would be
able to make use of; I'm sure they would just treat it as income.
Depending on the manner the money was distributed, it might be possible
to avoid things such as NI, but that is still going to vary by country
(Germany, I would guess, probably has stronger protections).

I think this type os system should only be viewed as a way forward for
those pieces of software which are not commercially viable. It seems
fairly clear to me that Scribus could be commercially viable, but of
course building a business around free software development is tricky in
the very least (many, myself included, think it impossible).

> In normal circumstances, the IP and copyright and licencing conditions
> would become those of the person paying the money. However, in free
> software, the IP and copyright are normally those of the author(s) and
> licenced how they see fit (typically, GPL or LGPL).

I'm afraid I don't share your assessment - ownership of copyright does
not vary by licensing scheme, as a rule. I guess what you mean is that
most commercial software is work-for-hire (and hence owned by a
company), and much free softare is developed by individuals (and hence
owned by them). There would be nothing stopping those individuals
starting a company, and transferring the rights to it though - furhther,
there would probably be no expection/reason for rights transfer either.

> I was not able to implement them for a variety of reasons, the main one
> was that as the code was as a result of breaking the original licence
> conditions, it would make the derived code a threat to the package.

Reverse engineering is protected under the European Copyright Convention
for the furthering of interoperability. Technically, you should be okay.
Practically, you could probably expect your day in court.

> It certainly is a minefield, but I'm sure the obstacles can be shoved
> out of the way and this really worthwhile project pushed forward. Good
> luck Neil :-)

Agreed ;)

Cheers,

Alex.