[LAD] Fwd: Fw: Re: At the hands of Professor Keller and Raymond

[Patrick Shirkey]

On 08/02/2009 06:51 AM, Robert Keller wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2009, at 4:04 PM, nescivi wrote:
>
>    
>> On Saturday 01 August 2009 13:36:20 laseray at gmail.com wrote:
>>      
>>> On Saturday 01 August 2009 11:32:24 nescivi wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On Wednesday 29 July 2009 00:49:09 David Robillard wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>>>>> The raw code seems okay over there. Running ant to make a dist
>>>>>>>> package results in something that violates the GPL if a user
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> to distribute it.
>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>> No, it does not, and even if it did, this would not be a GPL
>>>>>>> violation on Prof. Keller's part.
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> Yes, it does. I just did it a little while ago. There is no
>>>>>> license
>>>>>> file in it. I checked the dist/zip targets.
>>>>>>              
>>>> so that is unfortunate, and should be corrected to avoid confusion.
>>>> But, it would still be the user distributing the binary violating
>>>> and not
>>>> Keller.
>>>>          
>>> This was not the point though. Just pointing out that a user/
>>> developer
>>> could inadvertently start distributing packages that do violate. As
>>> far
>>> as I am concerned, a little bit more diligence should be directed
>>> to these
>>> kinds of issues before distribution takes place. In the Impro-Visor 4
>>> source package I distribute (on Improvisor at SF) I have fixed this
>>> so that
>>> it won't happen.
>>>
>>> On another related point. I am still wondering what is up with the
>>> copyright changes that took place between version 2.04 and 3.39. I
>>> have the
>>> 2.04 source and I see that there are a number of people who have
>>> copyrights
>>> indicated in the GPL headers for that. Then when you look at the 3.39
>>> headers it only says that the copyrights belong to Keller and his
>>> educational institution. What is the situation with that?
>>>
>>> Either everybody transferred their copyrights to him and the
>>> institution or
>>> this is another set of violations (one for each person who had their
>>> respective copyright removed/changed). Personally, I would like see
>>> everybody who did work on that have their proper copyrights
>>> indicated.
>>> Some clarification would be helpful.
>>>        
>> Bob Keller has to comment on that for the precise situation, but it
>> may well
>> be that student's work in his institution, are copyrighted by the
>> institution.
>>
>> sincerely,
>> Marije
>>      
>
>
> We employ the students, so we own the copyright.
>
>    

I understand that it's a Sunday and your being pushed to be accountable 
however this statement is slightly inflammatory so I have a couple of 
questions.

- Am I correct that all releases from your institute are licensed to 
your institute and any contributions from your students are also owned 
by your institute?

- Do the students sign a disclaimer that says that all code they provide 
to you is owned by the institute?

- Out of interest, do you pay your students for the code they give to 
you? I assume they pay you for the courses they participate in?

If you originally attribute the copyright to your students then it is 
confusing and legally on very shaky ground to later decide that they 
actually work for you and all code released by your institute is owned 
by your institute.

If however you have a signed document from each student that cedes 
ownership to the institute then you are well within your rights.  
However it would be courteous to let everyone who uses your code know 
that this is the case.

You are treading a fine line by claiming ownership of gpl code and not 
attributing license to the original code as defined in the gpl.

Not to mention that attempting to bypass the gpl while relying on gpl 
licensed code for the backbone of your app is a violation of the 
principals of the gpl and is bound to cause some people round here to 
get upset and want to clarify things.

This whole problem could have been solved if you had originally provided 
Ray with access to the source when he asked for it, but in essence you 
should be making your code available from the start at a public location.











> Bob
>
> Robert Keller
> Csilla&  Walt Foley Professor
> Computer Science
> Harvey Mudd College
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20090802/73ccbef7/attachment.html>