2 Aug
2009
2 Aug
'09
8:57 a.m.
DISCLAIMER
I don't want to discuss the merits of any particular
case. If I refer to Prof. Keller it is only by way of
example, and not to suggest he should justify himself
on this list. Of course I'm still interested in his
views on these matters.
END DISCLAIMER
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students ...'.
That would certainly be the case for a post-graduate
student who becomes a teaching or research assistant
and who receives a stipend from the institute or any
of its sponsors. The transfer of copyright is usually
stipulated in the contract in this case (and in some
cases, it has to be and is not automatic).
It is certainly not correct for any normal student
who would actually be paying the institute instead
of the reverse. In market-economic terms such a
student is a customer, not an employee. In that
case it would seem morally wrong (to me) if the
institute 'grabs' his copyright.
And what would be the situation of (again, just an
example) Prof. Keller himself ? Certainly he is an
employee of his educational institute.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
2 Aug
2 Aug
9:32 a.m.
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
DISCLAIMER
I don't want to discuss the merits of any particular
case. If I refer to Prof. Keller it is only by way of
example, and not to suggest he should justify himself
on this list. Of course I'm still interested in his
views on these matters.
END DISCLAIMER
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students ...'.
That would certainly be the case for a post-graduate
student who becomes a teaching or research assistant
and who receives a stipend from the institute or any
of its sponsors. The transfer of copyright is usually
stipulated in the contract in this case (and in some
cases, it has to be and is not automatic).
It is certainly not correct for any normal student
who would actually be paying the institute instead
of the reverse. In market-economic terms such a
student is a customer, not an employee. In that
case it would seem morally wrong (to me) if the
institute 'grabs' his copyright.
And what would be the situation of (again, just an
example) Prof. Keller himself ? Certainly he is an
employee of his educational institute.
Ciao,
Referring to the copyleft statements by Stallman and the FSF you can
have a copyright by FLOSS, by GNU, but not by the GPL itself. The
institute might have a copyright for the software's name and the logos,
but each coder has to copyleft his changes on GPL code.
Students or developers for proprietary companies that don't use GPL code
might lost the copyright for their intellectual property because of
contracts. What ever I have done for Brauner microphones when I worked
for him, is owned by Brauner and not by me. I was paid to do it, even if
I was disproportional bad paid. Students won't get money, but the
universities might have contracts with the students, resp. with
proprietary companies that cooperate with universities, so they might
have to pay less college tuitions.
For the GPL there only seems to be one way. The coder needs to keep the
original author and to add his name and the date when he changed GPL
code and if he writes complete new code, he needs to add his name and
need it to do by matching to GPL versions of GPL code done by other
authors, that is included to his project. No institute can take on a
copyright, while the institute is using GPL licensed code.
I don't understand the GPL, but this is repeated and repeated by
Stallman and the FSF. I don't think, that I'm mistaken, but I might be
wrong.
Ciao,
Ralf
10:05 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:41PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
The institute might have a copyright for the
software's name and the logos,
but each coder has to copyleft his changes on GPL code.
No institute can take on a copyright, while the institute is using GPL
licensed code.
I'm not quite sure whether I understand you correctly, but it seems you're
not entirely right here.
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under whatever other
license either.
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to
do so.
Arnout
10:20 a.m.
Arnout Engelen wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether I understand you
correctly, but it seems you're
not entirely right here.
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under whatever other
license either.
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to
do so.
You misunderstood my broken English. GPL only allows a copyleft, that's
why no institute or professor can use GPL licensed code and take on the
copyright.
Of course, it's quite possible that the students
in Prof.
Keller's case were actually paid or otherwise compensated
for this work.
As I have written before, less college tuitions are similar to being
paid. In Germany unfortunately only the privileged population is able to
study. I'm highly gifted and on Germany there's a special regulation for
financial aid by the law, but even this only can be used if you are some
kind of privileged person. To make it available for even less privileged
people there are cooperation with companies, that make college tuitions
less expensive. This still is a ethical problem, but the world isn't a
fair place, there is no god who ordered that things should be ethical.
The only thing we can do to make the world a better place for this issue
is to keep knowledge open, that's the spirit of FLOSS and that's why
there is the GPL. I don't think any institute is allowed to take on a
copyright by using GPL licensed code.
Ralf
11:08 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
As I have written before, less college tuitions are
similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers, sponsors,
or whatever. The price I pay for you product or service is
the price. If any deals you make with others allow you to
offer a better price that does not mean you are 'paying' me
or that I have any obligations as an employee towards you.
Ciao.
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
11:11 a.m.
On 08/02/2009 08:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
Unless you sign a contract that says otherwise when you become a customer.
Cheers.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
As I have written before, less college tuitions
are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers, sponsors,
or whatever. The price I pay for you product or service is
the price. If any deals you make with others allow you to
offer a better price that does not mean you are 'paying' me
or that I have any obligations as an employee towards you.
11:32 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 11:10:35PM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Such a contract may stipulate obligations I have *as
as customer*. It can never turn me into an employee.
A second contract would be required to do that, and
whatever is stipulated there can have no impact on
my position w.r.t. the first.
If we were to discuss a business partnership we could
agree on whatever we wanted and put that in a contract.
But in most civilised countries any other form of
contract would have to clearly define the nature of it
(sale, rent, employment, etc.) and anything going beyond
the scope of that single nature would be null and void.
Ciao,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf
Mardorf wrote:
Unless you sign a contract that says otherwise when you become a customer. As I have written before, less college tuitions
are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers, sponsors,
or whatever. The price I pay for you product or service is
the price. If any deals you make with others allow you to
offer a better price that does not mean you are 'paying' me
or that I have any obligations as an employee towards you.
11:21 a.m.
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
You're right and wrong at the same time ;). If universities in Germany
won't do such skewed deals, only the rich of the rich people would be
able to study. In Germany there are much, much, much ... more rich
people on even academic high schools (Gymnasien), by having the same
intelligence as poor people. without those deals it would become more worse.
Ralf
As I have written before, less college tuitions
are similar to being paid.
Absolutely not.
If you run a business and I am your customer I am in no
way bound by any deals you make with suppliers, sponsors,
or whatever. The price I pay for you product or service is
the price. If any deals you make with others allow you to
offer a better price that does not mean you are 'paying' me
or that I have any obligations as an employee towards you.
Ciao.
11:31 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnout Engelen wrote:
Example.
Say I'm employed, and I'm working on some project for my employer. I download
some GPL'ed code, and write some nontrivial additions to it.
This now means the institution has the copyright on the code I wrote. If I'd
want to distribute this software, I'd need 2 things:
1) distribute it under the GPL
2) ask my employer to either:
a) grant me my copyright back on the additions
b) give me permission to distribute the software under the GPL
If I wouldn't do (1), I would violate the copyright of the original author of
the GPL'ed code I download.
If I wouldn't do (2), I would violate the copyright of my employer.
In other words, if my employer doesn't give me permission to distribute the
work I did for him, I cannot distribute it at all, regardless of the GPL.
The instition is still bound by the GPL though, so they can't distribute the
software under anything other than the GPL - but they can still choose not to
distribute at all.
Arnout
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of
code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under whatever
other license either.
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to
do so.
You misunderstood my broken English. GPL only allows a copyleft, that's
why no institute or professor can use GPL licensed code and take on the
copyright.
I don't think any institute is allowed to take on a copyright by using GPL
licensed code.
11:47 a.m.
On 08/02/2009 08:22 PM, Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
They can also choose to only distribute privately and then they would
only have to provide copies of the code to the users of the software if
the user asks for the code.
Hence if none of the users ask for the code, they don't have to
distribute it. Also, this is one point that has always struck me as odd
but IIUC, the distributor doesn't have any obligation under the GPL-v2
to distribute the code in any specific time frame. The GPL-v3 might
have added a clause for the time frame for distribution after a request
is made.
IIUC, the time frame issue is resolved by the requestee making it clear
that they will distribute a version of the code on their own or
otherwise make it known that the original distributor is not keeping to
the principals of the GPL by delaying release of the code after a
request is made for it's release.
In other words, the aim of the game is to shame the player who tries to
go against the principals of the GPL.
That, AFAICT, is the last resort of the GPL before a full scale legal
attack is launched.
Effectively this works out to:
1: Play nice and keep everyone happy
2: Shame
3: Lawyers
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Arnout Engelen wrote:
Example.
Say I'm employed, and I'm working on some project for my employer. I download
some GPL'ed code, and write some nontrivial additions to it.
This now means the institution has the copyright on the code I wrote. If I'd
want to distribute this software, I'd need 2 things:
1) distribute it under the GPL
2) ask my employer to either:
a) grant me my copyright back on the additions
b) give me permission to distribute the software under the GPL
If I wouldn't do (1), I would violate the copyright of the original author of
the GPL'ed code I download.
If I wouldn't do (2), I would violate the copyright of my employer.
In other words, if my employer doesn't give me permission to distribute the
work I did for him, I cannot distribute it at all, regardless of the GPL.
The instition is still bound by the GPL though, so they can't distribute the
software under anything other than the GPL - but they can still choose not to
distribute at all.
If you don't have the copyright to a piece of
code you wrote, for example
because you wrote it for your employer, then this means you are *not allowed*
to distribute this code. Not under the GPL, and not under whatever
other license either.
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution) to
do so.
You misunderstood my broken English. GPL only allows a copyleft,
that's
why no institute or professor can use GPL licensed code and take on the
copyright.
I don't think any institute is allowed to take on a copyright by using GPL
licensed code.
10:59 a.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 07:56:41 Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:41PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
...
To distribute the code, you must either get the copyright on the work back,
or get permission from the actual copyright holder (employer, institution)
to do so.
Right.
The thing is I already have this (GPL) code that was distributed for the
program's earlier version with all these other people's names in the
copyright part. Then with the next version their names are all gone. The
GPL indicates that all copyrights must remain intact. Unless those people
transferred their copyrights, in a bilateral agreement of some sort, then
something seems to be incorrect.
Maybe those people did sign some kind of document, enter into some type
of agreement that does hand over the copyrights. I do not know, but it would
be helpful to have some evidence of this, sample of document indicating the
case, or hear from a few of the people involved that are named in the
copyrights.
The point of this would be to future-proof the code against violations by
settling these issues sooner than later. At present the documentation included
with the program does not specify anything about the situation relating listed
authors to copyrights. I think you can understand how it might seem that
something is amiss given different sets of source files for different versions
with altogether different copyrights then.
A little more details showing what the actual case is can prevent the issue
from arising again in the future. Possibly provide some explanation in a
readme file or help that is distributed with the application.
Just note that since the older source code has already been distributed,
with those other copyrights in place, it can continue to be distributed
with them intact and be modified and distributed in accord with the
GPL, as long as everything is legitimate.
Some more substance to the clarification on this point would be significantly
more helpful. Not only to users/developers, but to the original project
to ensure it can avoid future issues and questions surrounding points like
this.
Raymond
10:13 a.m.
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 13:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Referring to the copyleft statements by Stallman and
the FSF you can
have a copyright by FLOSS, by GNU, but not by the GPL itself. The
institute might have a copyright for the software's name and the logos,
but each coder has to copyleft his changes on GPL code.
I have no idea what you mean with copyright "by FLOSS, by GNU, by GPL".
On a name or logo would be trademark, not copyright.
Students or developers for proprietary companies that
don't use GPL code
might lost the copyright for their intellectual property because of
contracts. What ever I have done for Brauner microphones when I worked
for him, is owned by Brauner and not by me. I was paid to do it, even if
I was disproportional bad paid. Students won't get money, but the
universities might have contracts with the students, resp. with
proprietary companies that cooperate with universities, so they might
have to pay less college tuitions.
For the GPL there only seems to be one way. The coder needs to keep the
original author and to add his name and the date when he changed GPL
code and if he writes complete new code, he needs to add his name and
need it to do by matching to GPL versions of GPL code done by other
authors, that is included to his project. No institute can take on a
copyright, while the institute is using GPL licensed code.
I don't understand the GPL, but this is repeated and repeated by
Stallman and the FSF. I don't think, that I'm mistaken, but I might be
wrong.
I don't see how that would work out. It's up to the copyright holder to
license the software as GPL. AFAIK, you can give away your copyright on
your works in some jurisdictions, including the US. That means you can
sell it or give it away and there can be clauses to that extent in
contracts.
This might be more complicated in countries such as Germany, where
citizens are not legally able to give up their copyright. But I guess
you can still grant someone else all rights, irrevocably, just not
exclusively.
Copyleft/GPL build on copyright. It's the lever to do anything.
Of course you have to keep all names of people that didn't hand over
copyright to you in.
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
10:25 a.m.
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
10:45 a.m.
Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
I programmed free software without using any code of other people, in
Germany I automatically have the copyright by doing this.
I not only worked as an audio and video engineer and a free software
coder, but also as graphic artist, in Germany I automatically have the
copyright for free and for saleable artwork. I also can automatically
loose the copyright when I sell artwork, but it's also possible to keep
the copyright after selling.
The EU might handle intellectual property different to other countries
and dunno, maybe there are differences between the EU and Germany and
maybe I'm mistaken because of actual laws.
I have a criminal record because I didn't go to the German Armed Forces,
today it's hard to become a record because of doing this. Laws will
change ;) and I'm not a lawyer.
A good reason for discussing the copyright issue, isn to know about it,
before somebody become a copyright holder ;).
Ralf
10:52 a.m.
Hi,
On Sunday 02 August 2009 14:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this
discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
I didn't yet take part in the discussion. But I am a copyright-holder. Both
private (GPL:) and work. And for the work (at a university, what a
coincidence) we decided to add "publish as opensource" to the mission-
statement of the project. Because otherwise the lawyers of both paying
institutes would have to fight a paperwar and think about possible sales and
stuff (in a market of ~10 possible customers in europe that all have their own
software written/in writing).
What I know is: If you didn't sign a contract and work on a project, the
copyright is still yours and you can (re-)license your work as you like. If
you sign a contract, it is standard that you give the employee exclusive
rights to license and publish your work (you still have the original
copyright, in german "urheberrecht" which they can't take away from you!).
Some firms even go as far as also disallowing all our private programming
because of possible espionage / knowledge-transfer. Which is okay, if you did
sign a contract saying so...
So changing the license-holder in the source-files to say "university
<bla>" is
okay. Not listing the names of the authors/contributors is okay. Removing the
names of the authors/contributors is certainly not (because it is a change of
copyright). Especially if they didn't sign a contract.
And if the project is licensed under GPL, there is actually no reason to
change entries of copyright-holders...
Have fun,
Arnold
11:14 a.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
11:23 a.m.
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Arnold Krille wrote:
Just because you work for a company or contribute code to a company
doesn't give them exclusive license to your code.
You have to *explicitly* sign or give that right away.
IIUC, if you don't sign a contract or otherwise agree in writing or
verbally that your code is not owned by you or your company then it's
yours or your companies to do with as you or your company will.
Caveat is that your use of the code can not infringe on any other rights
for any other owners of any code that you have used as part of your code
or linked to in a way that makes it a part of your codebase in a legal
definition of any licenses that are attributed to code that you have
used or linked with.
phew.....
This is why gpl is so much simpler and loved.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
11:40 a.m.
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
You aren't from Germany?!
I was in another situation, I signed a contract that said, I'll lose
rights for artworks if I sell it. That's fine. But in addition the
contract said, any work that I hand in to the company must not be hand
in to any other company, even if they won't by my artwork.
In Germany we call this "Sittenwidrig" (immoral), such a stipulation is
null and void. Here I know that it is that way.
On the other hand, if a company pays you a regular salary and the job is
named "developer", it might include that a copyright will subrogate to
the employer, even if there isn't any stipulation saying this. Here I'm
not sure.
Arnold Krille wrote:
Just because you work for a company or contribute code to a company
doesn't give them exclusive license to your code.
You have to *explicitly* sign or give that right away.
IIUC, if you don't sign a contract or otherwise agree in writing or
verbally that your code is not owned by you or your company then it's
yours or your companies to do with as you or your company will.
Caveat is that your use of the code can not infringe on any other
rights for any other owners of any code that you have used as part of
your code or linked to in a way that makes it a part of your codebase
in a legal definition of any licenses that are attributed to code that
you have used or linked with.
phew.....
This is why gpl is so much simpler and loved. If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
12:41 p.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:40:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On the other hand, if a company pays you a regular
salary and the job is
named "developer", it might include that a copyright will subrogate to
the employer, even if there isn't any stipulation saying this. Here I'm
not sure.
It is not bound to the job description "developer" but by the job description
"worker" / "employee".
I repeat: Standard contracts say that _all_ work you do for a company belongs
to that company. It doesn't matter whether its some creative or developing or
"just" technical thing you do (even fetching garbage falls in there). Standard
contracts say, in copyright terms, that you give them exclusive rights to
publish and use your works.
Arnold
PS: The weekends don't feel right without a discussion about licenses and
copyrights, do they?
6:25 p.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:40:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Okay, thank you.
On the other hand, if a company pays you a
regular salary and the job is
named "developer", it might include that a copyright will subrogate to
the employer, even if there isn't any stipulation saying this. Here I'm
not sure.
It is not bound to the job description "developer" but by the job description
"worker" / "employee".
I repeat: Standard contracts say that _all_ work you do for a company belongs
to that company. It doesn't matter whether its some creative or developing or
"just" technical thing you do (even fetching garbage falls in there). Standard
contracts say, in copyright terms, that you give them exclusive rights to
publish and use your works.
Arnold
PS: The weekends don't feel right without a discussion about licenses and
copyrights, do they?
In addition I had a phone call discussion about god and had no time to
compile some needed stuff.
11:42 a.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Standard contracts for employees include that the copyrights of their
productive work during company time is property of the company. And that
includes software...
Arnold
Arnold Krille wrote:
Just because you work for a company or
contribute code to a company
doesn't give them exclusive license to your code.
You have to *explicitly* sign or give that right away. If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you
did some kind of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
11:56 a.m.
Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
In my case it would be hardware. The contracts were printed forms for
"workers", but not especially for "developers" and some employers were
newbie bosses. You might be right, even if I can't remember the
contracts. To be honest, it's not really important for me now, but maybe
it can become important if I disclose knowledge for free or got a new job.
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Standard contracts for employees include that the copyrights of their
productive work during company time is property of the company. And that
includes software... Arnold Krille wrote:
Just because you work for a company or contribute code to a company
doesn't give them exclusive license to your code.
You have to *explicitly* sign or give that right away.
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind
of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
12:16 p.m.
On 08/02/2009 08:41 PM, Arnold Krille wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 18:22:56 Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Ummm, that's my point. Unless you *sign* a contract or otherwise agree
verbally or in writing you don't give away your rights to the code.
If you sign a standard employment contract then you may well have given
away your rights. In fact if you sign anything you probably have given
away your rights as that is usually the point of getting someone to sign
something.
If you agree to it verbally or in writing you also have given away your
rights if it can be proven that you agreed to the terms as contested in
a court of law or deemed reasonable to contest in a court of law.
Ex. Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg paid 60Mil to the original
conceptualisuers to keep them from dragging him through the courts even
though he never signed a contract because they had verbal and written
communications that Facebook was their idea.
In other words if someone gives you some code or even ideas for code and
you agree that it is under their ownership and they have documents to
back that up if the case has to go to court then you are not the owner
of the code or the concept that gave you the idea/motivation to write
the code unless you are preapared to pay some money to shut them up.
In this situation the issue is really if the code is worth contesting in
a court of law and paying lawyers to do the contesting or bullying or in
some cases paying publicity managers to make the case public enough to
get the target to cough up some dough. At the end of the day it almost
always comes down to getting cash out of the target.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On 08/02/2009 08:14 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Standard contracts for employees include that the copyrights of their
productive work during company time is property of the company. And that
includes software... Arnold Krille wrote:
Just because you work for a company or contribute code to a company
doesn't give them exclusive license to your code.
You have to *explicitly* sign or give that right away.
If you didn't sign a contract and work on a
project, the
copyright is still yours
Are you sure? I guess (and I'm not sure) that if you did some kind
of
work, e.g. being a developer for a company, it implies that the employer
will take on the copyright and that you aren't allowed to disclose
know-how, even if there isn't a special contract saying this. If I'm
wrong, this would give me some thrilling views for my future, because
of my past and especially a friend could benefit from this, because he
did much more for other people than I did.
6 Aug
6 Aug
1:02 a.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 09:41:57 Arnold Krille wrote:
Standard contracts for employees include that the
copyrights of their
productive work during company time is property of the company. And that
includes software...
Arnold
OK, but what about the copyrights of their non productive work during company
time?
Or is all copyrightable work done on company time legally deemed to be
*productive* ??? ~;-)
all the best,
drew
8:15 a.m.
drew Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 02 August 2009 09:41:57 Arnold Krille
wrote:
This is a well known problem. If it's not part of the contract and by
standard contracts it isn't, you have the copyright to what you make not
for your employer.
It might be that you program something, not under the GPL, not open
source, that has the same function as what you programmed for your employer.
1. Maybe you used the same routines, but nobody can know this.
2. Maybe you were writing a compete new program.
I worked as engineer for Brauner some years ago, am I allowed to develop
and distribute a microphone today by all the knowledge I've got from the
time I worked for Brauner?
I guess the answers will differ to the countries we are living in.
Brauner don't pay me any more, I don't got a compensation to be quiet
and in Germany many people are unemployed. So I'm allowed to do so.
I only see a problem for a coder who do program 2 applications doing the
same, one for his employer and the other under the GPL or what ever
licences. I guess this is something a court needs to decide by asking
programming experts ;).
Standard contracts for employees include that the
copyrights of their
productive work during company time is property of the company. And that
includes software...
Arnold
OK, but what about the copyrights of their non productive work during company
time?
Or is all copyrightable work done on company time legally deemed to be
*productive* ??? ~;-)
all the best,
drew
2 Aug
2 Aug
11:08 a.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 08:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
I have copyrighted work out there. These are mostly FOSS. GPL stuff, mostly,
but also LGPL, BSD, EPL, and OPL for some documentation.
Raymond
11:09 a.m.
On 08/02/2009 07:25 PM, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
From my count it's about 90% of respondents so far.
Cheers.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
11:38 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this
discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
At least in the Netherlands (and i believe this goes for most if not all of
Europe), it's pretty hard not to be a copyright holder: you're automatically a
copyright holder when you create a nontrivial work. Registering your copyright
is optional (but can make things somewhat easier in case of a dispute).
So yeah, I'm a copyright holder, mostly some software here and there and a
couple of publications in online and dead-tree magazines.
Arnout
11:48 a.m.
Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave
Phillips wrote:
It's the same in Germany, so it seems to obtain for the EU. In Germany
we make jokes, if people have fat copyright written over their graphical
artworks. This only is done by non-professionals who try to look like
professionals.
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in
this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
At least in the Netherlands (and i believe this goes for most if not all of
Europe), it's pretty hard not to be a copyright holder: you're automatically a
copyright holder when you create a nontrivial work. Registering your copyright
is optional (but can make things somewhat easier in case of a dispute).
So yeah, I'm a copyright holder, mostly some software here and there and a
couple of publications in online and dead-tree magazines. 
7:52 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
re all,
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 03:29:53PM +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 08:25:19AM -0400, Dave
Phillips wrote:
as an author is nice to register a copyright without effort and
institutional bureaucracy, especially when not aiming at restricting
people rights with your creations. that's the partial win of the
Creative Commons licences in the art world...
"registering your copyright" for musicians in a place like Italy is
something like "share the income of your popularity with the SIAE
mafia" which is going to send hit-squads all over the country to break
partys whenever your songs are singed or played - and this really
happens believe me, even with kids singing songs at birthday parties.
AFAIK the situation is very similar in Spain, with the SGAE.
the GNU GPL agile copyright registration aimed at freedom helps us
little fishes survive despite the "marauding giants" - institutions,
corporations, etc. as in a student - university relationship can be.
a common situation of attribution of authorship in Universities in a
place like Italy, again: professors (we call them barons) often use
the production of their students for their "side jobs" as corporate
consultants. sometimes organising little "prizes" (like trips to
Apple in Cupertino, for instance) meanwhile sending them all the
projects made by students for which the copyright and production
agreement is very blurred: the name (and cigar smoking) of the
professor on top with the company sponsoring the prizes and then a
confusing list of "students" participating.
now you know a good reason why i've emigrated :)
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the
richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of
zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels
Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in
this discussion
are copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under
copyright ?
At least in the Netherlands (and i believe this goes for most if not
all of Europe), it's pretty hard not to be a copyright holder:
you're automatically a copyright holder when you create a nontrivial
work. Registering your copyright is optional (but can make things
somewhat easier in case of a dispute). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp2C+cACgkQe2QxhLU0C14eqQCfSPVe6a/1IG0JK3rbjLsmd+v7
gvcAoKK18OXfhkvXagJ98VBOjEZhLCxr
=Mycj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3 Aug
3 Aug
3:28 a.m.
jaromil wrote:
re all,
the GNU GPL agile copyright registration aimed at freedom helps us
little fishes survive despite the "marauding giants" - institutions,
corporations, etc. as in a student - university relationship can be.
a common situation of attribution of authorship in Universities in a
place like Italy, again: professors (we call them barons) often use
the production of their students for their "side jobs" as corporate
consultants. sometimes organising little "prizes" (like trips to
Apple in Cupertino, for instance) meanwhile sending them all the
projects made by students for which the copyright and production
agreement is very blurred: the name (and cigar smoking) of the
professor on top with the company sponsoring the prizes and then a
confusing list of "students" participating.
now you know a good reason why i've emigrated :)
ciao
"Welcome to Impro-Visor (Improvisation Advisor) Version 4, from Bob
Keller at Harvey Mudd College.
[snip]
Bob Keller, Impro-Visor Project Director" (README.txt)
I don't like it, but it's not important if I or anybody else does or
doesn't like it. The students are mature and if they are fine with it,
it's their choice. And the good thing, there's no confusing list of
students participating ;).
Jazz musicians don't learn to improvise by a bot, but by this discussion
I learned a lot about the GPL. It would be fine if there would be an
easy to understand Wiki about the GPL, then nobody needs to controvert
the GPL on any developer mailing list.
The German Wiki seems to be such an easy to understand clarification,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License, but anyway, it
differs to a lot of expert posts by this discussion.
"Ziel ist es, die Freiheit eines Programmes auch in der
Weiterentwicklung von anderen sicherzustellen." on English this sentence
means that it's particularly wanted that someone like Raymond is allowed
to fork a modified project that original is from somebody else.
"The original Impro-Visor project is now hosted on sourceForge. This is
using little changes as a red herring to try to take control of that
project, apparently." (posted by keller91711 4 days ago)
There's no red herring needed to use the libre that is guaranteed by the
GPL.
If I do understand the German Wiki right, Bob Keller still is violating
the GPL. This isn't an attack by me, it's confusing me, on English there
e.g. is: "you need to include any such compile-time configuration files,
too" (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
Anyway, it's hard to understand what needs to be done and what not. As
somebody who doesn't understand a lot of issues I was asked not to
comment anything, by people who might have knowledge about the GPL, but
on the other hand some easy to understand clarifications disagree with
this knowledge.
This is confusing and explains that it's hard to comply to the GPL and
in addition to individual laws of some countries and different points of
view by experts.
Is http://gpl-violations.org right or wrong with it's interpretation of
the GPL?
Ralf
--
Secret of Tux:
http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/user_uploads/forum_thumbnails/5/75/355.j…
"Gromit bit me" says HMV dog:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_03/GomitHMVPA_468x319.jpg
3:39 a.m.
"Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts,
but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only
mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the
license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically
only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required
to install a (modified) version of the compiled program."
(http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
"How can I verify that my source code release is complete?
This is quite easy. If you only use source code provided in that
release, and you can use this source code to produce a working form of
the executable code, then the source code release seems complete.
If the build process fails, or you end up with a non-working executable,
or you have no way to install the resulting executable, then clearly
something is missing." (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
9:55 a.m.
On Monday 03 August 2009 01:39:14 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
"Sometimes, the process of installation is not
facilitated by scripts,
but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only
mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the
license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically
only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required
to install a (modified) version of the compiled program."
(http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
This I disagree with. The wording in the GPL is not as they are interpreting
it. It is impossible to include every piece of software to create installable
executables, that is why the wording in the GPL does not mention them.
It would nice if everyone did that, in some cases these parts are feasible
to include, other times they are too unwieldy or have license that disallow
it.
On some Linux distros RPM is used as the package manager. People on
Windows do not have RPM, so they can never build an RPM without Linux
(AFAIK). On Mac the usual way to install is by .dmg (Disk Image). This is an
Apple specific format. Not available on Linux, Windows, etc. You need a Mac.
Likewise, except for a few exceptional programs, you cannot build an
.exe on Linux or Mac.
It may be improper practice or plain just not in the spirit of FOSS, but
you can use whatever program you want to build the installables. Just
put the scripts used to do that with the source distribution so there is
at least a remote chance that someone getting the package could use
them. The point is not to obsolete a modified version before it has a
chance to make improvements, as much as possible.
"How can I verify that my source code release is complete?
This is quite easy. If you only use source code provided in that
release, and you can use this source code to produce a working form of
the executable code, then the source code release seems complete.
If the build process fails, or you end up with a non-working executable,
or you have no way to install the resulting executable, then clearly
something is missing." (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
Thus, if there is a working version available and you get the source but it
won't compile, then the distributor is at fault for not providing a proper
script to build it. They managed to build it, but now the code for it won't
build. At that point the problem is either deliberate or a sign of
incompetence. Due diligence on the part of the distributor before they ever
distribute anything cures most problems before they arise. A little patience
up front to check their work before the release goes a long way to avoiding
problems.
A major problem is that people too often have a flagrantly loose attitude
about the whole matter. Very sloppy approach. The license is an afterthought.
No, the license is number 1 (when it comes to distribution). If you keep your
software to yourself then the license is at the bottom of the list. Priorities
have to change if you ever release it to the general public. This is where
the issue comes up.
Raymond
9:27 a.m.
On Monday 03 August 2009 01:28:14 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
jaromil wrote:
"Welcome to Impro-Visor (Improvisation Advisor) Version 4, from Bob
Keller at Harvey Mudd College.
[snip]
Bob Keller, Impro-Visor Project Director" (README.txt)
I don't like it, but it's not important if I or anybody else does or
doesn't like it. The students are mature and if they are fine with it,
it's their choice. And the good thing, there's no confusing list of
students participating ;).
Sure. Responsible choices.
Jazz musicians don't learn to improvise by a bot, but by this discussion
I learned a lot about the GPL. It would be fine if there would be an
easy to understand Wiki about the GPL, then nobody needs to controvert
the GPL on any developer mailing list.
I find it frustrating to have to explain the GPL to people over and over.
I have had to do it numerous times in the past and probably will in the
future. I'm almost inclined to put up a web page with my explanations
so I do not have to repeat everything again and again. Of course, there
will still be those who do not read it properly and then disagree, at which
point the same things will have to be explained again. This is what you
have to deal with when it comes to a legal document. The language of
theses types of documents is not everyday, so it confuses people. And
the GPL is very light on legalese at that.
The German Wiki seems to be such an easy to understand
clarification,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License, but anyway, it
differs to a lot of expert posts by this discussion.
"Ziel ist es, die Freiheit eines Programmes auch in der
Weiterentwicklung von anderen sicherzustellen." on English this sentence
means that it's particularly wanted that someone like Raymond is allowed
to fork a modified project that original is from somebody else.
"The original Impro-Visor project is now hosted on sourceForge. This is
using little changes as a red herring to try to take control of that
project, apparently." (posted by keller91711 4 days ago)
There's no red herring needed to use the libre that is guaranteed by the
GPL.
Just another offensive commentary that flies in the face of the rights
guaranteed by the GPL. Anybody, according to that mentality, is evil
if they dare fork free software. A whole world community disagrees
with that attitude.
If I do understand the German Wiki right, Bob Keller still is violating
the GPL. This isn't an attack by me, it's confusing me, on English there
e.g. is: "you need to include any such compile-time configuration files,
too" (http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html)
Exactly. Just as I have indicated.
Anyway, it's hard to understand what needs to be
done and what not. As
somebody who doesn't understand a lot of issues I was asked not to
comment anything, by people who might have knowledge about the GPL, but
on the other hand some easy to understand clarifications disagree with
this knowledge.
This is confusing and explains that it's hard to comply to the GPL and
in addition to individual laws of some countries and different points of
view by experts.
Is http://gpl-violations.org right or wrong with it's interpretation of
the GPL?
They are correct. And I am echoing almost exactly what they say.
Raymond
1:12 p.m.
On Aug 2, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
"Welcome to Impro-Visor (Improvisation Advisor) Version 4, from Bob
Keller at Harvey Mudd College.
[snip]
Bob Keller, Impro-Visor Project Director" (README.txt)
I don't like it, but it's not important if I or anybody else does or
doesn't like it. The students are mature and if they are fine with it,
it's their choice. And the good thing, there's no confusing list of
students participating ;).
Ralf,
What's there not to like, that a project can have a director?
Have you actually run the app? If you do so, click the Help>About
menu. There you will find all contributors are listed, as they were
from the day when I first released it. I also promote them and
attribute their roles on the project home page. They are also co-
authors on various papers that are linked.
You might find this hard to believe, but without my efforts, this tool
would not exist. It was purely my conception and it was I who took the
first version from a non-working prototype at the end of the first
summer to something that I'd be willing to post in any form. It took
an additional 4 months of full-time work to get it to the first
release. And that sort of thing has continued, as summer student
workers leave incomplete additions to the software. It has been a big
drain on time, and without someone to move it forward, it would not be
available in its current form. The students leave and usually cease
their contributions after the money runs out.
I am not asking you or anyone else here for kind words, and I realize
that you could not know about all the work that has gone into this,
but perhaps asking me directly before making assumptions and casting
aspersions on the project would be a courteous way to proceed.
Bob
Robert M. Keller, Csilla & Walt Foley Professor of Computer Science
Harvey Mudd College
Claremont, California 91711
2:42 p.m.
keller wrote:
The students leave and usually cease their
contributions after the
money runs out.
Hi Bob :)
IIUC the students get paid? This is seldom for coders that program
FLOSS. Unusual approaches by doing FLOSS and the way of how things work
on faculties as a rule, let me have a prejudice. I'm sorry for that.
Essential for me is that there was no source code and now there's the
source code, so I'm pleased.
Anyway, I'm allergic against degrees such as "Director" in liaison with
"libre" (from the acronym FLOSS), but this is just an individual
aversion by me and doesn't mean that it's bad.
Best,
Ralf
3:01 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Anyway, I'm allergic against degrees such as
"Director" in liaison with
"libre" (from the acronym FLOSS), but this is just an individual
aversion by me and doesn't mean that it's bad.
Right. The usual FLOSS equivalent is "benevolent dictator". Much
more egalitarian and freedom-loving. :-/
--
joq
4:49 p.m.
Hi,
On Monday 03 August 2009 19:01:56 Jack O'Quin wrote:
Actually the most free software development happens in a Do-cracy: The one who
does the job (or the biggest part of it) gets to decide.
So if Bob titles himself as "Director", that is fine. He actually directs the
output of various students into a releasable form that lasts longer then a
summer.
Have fun,
Arnold
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ralf
Mardorf<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>
wrote:
Anyway,
I'm allergic against degrees such as "Director" in liaison with
"libre" (from the acronym FLOSS), but this is just an individual
aversion by me and doesn't mean that it's bad.
Right. The usual FLOSS
equivalent is "benevolent dictator". Much
more egalitarian and freedom-loving. :-/
4 Aug
4 Aug
8:56 a.m.
David Robillard wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 20:49 +0200, Arnold Krille
wrote:
Please try to understand my commend about "Director" instead of "all
coders" not one sided. I particularly wrote that it's not bad that Bob
did it, please think about an issue like this one:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:21:38 +1000
From: Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+la(a)mega-nerd.com>
Reply-To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
References: <4A7748BC.3060107(a)gmail.com>
One policy I took on very early in the development of libsndfile was
to actively encourage people, in as many geographical locations as
possible) to add their names to the copyright notices. This means that
if some in country X is violating the LGPL there is a reasonably good
chance that there is a copyright holder in that country.
Actually the most free software development
happens in a Do-cracy: The one who
does the job (or the biggest part of it) gets to decide.
and the rest complain on mailing lists :)
5 Aug
5 Aug
8:28 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
re all,
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 08:49:40PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
Actually the most free software development happens
in a Do-cracy:
The one who does the job (or the biggest part of it) gets to decide.
that's right. but sometimes people gain a better position to do things
and avoid including other "doers" treathening their "power". it
can
happen in projects growing succesful, that get funding (yes, money can
harm a project) and don't have an "open organization" protocol (i'm
loosely referring to http://www.open-organizations.org) for these
kinds of negotiations.
So if Bob titles himself as "Director",
that is fine. He actually
directs the output of various students into a releasable form that
lasts longer then a summer.
i agree that is fine, plus he seems to invest good care in documenting
students contributions.
still, myself being a person working in education, i think the problem
is more structural: i'd rather question why students in a school
should be contributing to a professor's project, rather than starting
one on their own? they could learn how to work in a more horizontal
and creative way, even if the project will be less interesting in the
eyes of the director, who should be there to give suggestions and help
on students projects, not the contrary.
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the
richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of
zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels
Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp5X/UACgkQe2QxhLU0C15dRQCgqNN+jw50E/eyDRGQW09gpFaE
rwgAn0uR/cLvAzF7t+17ZHFl2wrkuEFB
=SGW1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11 a.m.
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 12:33:27 jaromil wrote:
still, myself being a person working in education, i
think the problem
is more structural: i'd rather question why students in a school
should be contributing to a professor's project, rather than starting
one on their own? they could learn how to work in a more horizontal
and creative way, even if the project will be less interesting in the
eyes of the director, who should be there to give suggestions and help
on students projects, not the contrary.
I disagree (from expirience in writing software in a science project) mostly
because half a year (which seems to be the normal timespan a student is
available with internships or thesis) is to short to successfully start and
finish(!) a project. And that doesn't even include supporting further
development over time. These are the things a long-term maintainer (aka
director:) does.
And you actually learn more when joining a project because you have someone
knowing the current code and giving you hints, you learn how to work together,
you learn how to define interfaces, you have someone looking at your errors and
correcting them. And you don't have to start from scratch...
Have fun,
Arnold
6 Aug
6 Aug
10:03 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
re all,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:00:20PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
I disagree (from expirience in writing software
in a science
project) mostly because half a year (which seems to be the normal
timespan a student is available with internships or thesis) is to
short to successfully start and finish(!) a project.
of course there is a substantial difference between a full BA, a 3
years MA or a short internship / stage. we should definitely draw a
line around what we are talking about.
And that doesn't even include supporting further
development over
time. These are the things a long-term maintainer (aka director:)
does.
yep. and where do you learn to be a director and commit to long-term
projects? :) seldom i've had the opportunity to make my long-term
innovative project (and well succesful, in some cases) accepted by
professors at school, rather than being invited to contribute to
professors' projects for the limited time span i was following their
course.
at last i believe both approaches are useful: learn how to contribute
to an existing project as well how to structure a new one - and even
to make different projects interoperable, whenever complementary in
their functionality. my argument is that in schools the latter is
often neglected, probably because the professors are often
concentrated on their own projects.
in general i disregard lack of long-term commitment in students, but
how would you ever learn to direction a project whose creator is your
professor, even payd to mantain it over time? maybe fork it :) if it's
GNU GPL'ed :)
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the
richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of
zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels
Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp6x+oACgkQe2QxhLU0C17KnACgzL9I6FShGs0QrxT4aZG5vSRt
AjwAoJfKCNoh+wkYKqY5T5NkMLpA/IJ8
=1XBX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
5 Aug
5 Aug
5:49 p.m.
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:33 +0200, jaromil wrote:
still, myself being a person working in education, i
think the problem
is more structural: i'd rather question why students in a school
should be contributing to a professor's project, rather than starting
one on their own? they could learn how to work in a more horizontal
and creative way, even if the project will be less interesting in the
eyes of the director, who should be there to give suggestions and help
on students projects, not the contrary.
This sounds a lot like elementary/middle/high school thinking being
applied to University where it really doesn't apply (no offense)
There are plenty of opportunities for students to do their own thing as
course work (or directed studies courses, if possible). Professor-run
projects are generally larger, more complicated things, that some random
student on their own is not about to write in a term or two. They often
live longer than a single student's entire tenure at the University...
Science(TM) tends to be a bit more difficult and elongated than sitting
down to write some straightforward program. Often you don't even know
if what you're attempting is possible, or will work well at all. If
it's straightforward for a student to sit down and write the program in
a few months, it's probably not very interesting or relevant...
Cheers,
-dr
6 Aug
6 Aug
9:41 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
re all,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:49:36PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:33 +0200, jaromil wrote:
this probably applies more to engineering and science faculties,
rather than design and arts. in the latter, being capable to envision
large projects yourself and establish a platform for collaboration
with others is a crucial skill that will empower the students'
professional future. i'm still surprised how often graduated students
have little experience in team working, still believing it can be
fruitful to use some of the time of a BA or MA to learn that.
still, myself being a person working in
education, i think the
problem is more structural: i'd rather question why students in a
school should be contributing to a professor's project, rather
than starting one on their own? they could learn how to work in a
more horizontal and creative way, even if the project will be less
interesting in the eyes of the director, who should be there to
give suggestions and help on students projects, not the contrary.
This sounds a lot like elementary/middle/high school thinking being
applied to University where it really doesn't apply (no offense)
There are plenty of opportunities for students to do their own thing
as course work (or directed studies courses, if possible).
Professor-run projects are generally larger, more complicated
things, that some random student on their own is not about to write
in a term or two. They often live longer than a single student's
entire tenure at the University... Science(TM) tends to be a bit more difficult and
elongated than
sitting down to write some straightforward program. Often you don't
even know if what you're attempting is possible, or will work well
at all. If it's straightforward for a student to sit down and write
the program in a few months, it's probably not very interesting or
relevant...
agree. of course it should include involvement of other students and
professors and aim at some consistent innovation, especially for a MA
course, students should be able to achieve that. as when you enroll a
PhD you need to have already a project outline for your study period,
in a MA course some time can be dedicated in outlining it under
guidance and confrontation with other students.
the point can be defined along the coop/collab binomial: i find this
paper by Ted Paniz a pretty good insight on the topic
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
ciao
- --
jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org
GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E
Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the
richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of
zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels
Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp6wqoACgkQe2QxhLU0C14QTgCfSE/j11c1YaqQ8bzOyh/7M9hP
tkUAniRpd6ZzAxa25dWske1W8eu6jFlS
=8B61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2 Aug
2 Aug
1:58 p.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009, Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
Best,
dp
Everything I ever wrote with 3 exceptions, carried a copyright (date) Maurice
E. Heskett.
The first 2 exceptions are anything I wrote for the trs-80 color computer,
which I long ago placed in the public domain, some of which is 10 to 20 years
later, on hardware installation disks from at least one src yet today. And
anything I've written for linux has been GPLv2 only since 11 years ago.
The other exception was a control program that was very useful to tv stations
doing their own commercial production, and the target machine was quite
cramped for memory, so it was only in the srcs.
How proud one can be about his output is best stated by the longevity of that
output, several of my projects for the 'coco' are now 20 years old & still in
use, and 2 programs I wrote for television stations have enjoyed lifetimes of
over a decade. Distribution of those however, wasn't an issue, AFAIK, only
one copy of each of those ever existed, they were written, and the hardware
needed built, to address a specific need. I do know that the mention of my
device and program while at their booth at the NAB in 1981, caused MicroTime
to drop a project they were working on which was not as capable in the model
they had there. Why they didn't just come and ask, I'll never know.
As for the removal of the names of the earlier contributors to the software
that started this bit of an endless and sometimes smoking thread, I would hope
that there exists in writing, a letter available to Mr. Keller, allowing their
copyrights to be removed, or that their contributions have all been re-written
in a clean room environment, with the re-writers never having had access to
the original code. If a code contribution has been completely removed, only
then can the copyright notice also be removed.
This last option is well established practice and seems to have stood the test
of legal time.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The NRA is offering FREE Associate memberships to anyone who wants them.
<https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp>
Q: Why did Menachem Begin invade Lebanon?
A: To impress Jodie Foster.
6 Aug
6 Aug
12:48 a.m.
On Sunday 02 August 2009 08:25:19 Dave Phillips wrote:
Greetings,
Just out of curiosity, how many participants in this discussion are
copyright holders ? How many of you have published works under copyright ?
+1 people
+many works
but surely this is almost a trick question even though it may not be intended
as one.
pretty much all speakers in this discussion are automatically copyright
holders by default, right? then there may be some participants in this
discussion who are participating by "listening: only but may hold other
copyrights.
semi joking aside, you did mean something like intentional copyright holders
didn't you? that is what i answered at the beginning.
Best,
dp
all the best,
drew
2 Aug
2 Aug
10:34 a.m.
Thorsten Wilms wrote:
Copyleft/GPL build on copyright. It's the lever to
do anything.
Of course you have to keep all names of people that didn't hand over
copyright to you in.
Copyleft is a function of the copyright by the GPL ;). Everybody is
allowed to use GPL licensed code, nobody can take on the copyright, if
he is using GPL licensed code. That is how I do understand the GPL.
In Germany we have a law for intellectual property, we don't need to
sign something by a copyright, but without making special contracts an
employer will own your intellectual property, if it's part of a job to
do development.
Dunno what's called trademark and what's called copyright, a logo e.g.
is artwork and for artwork the copyright is relevant too, but I know
[snip] like Brauner who threat e.g. a company that named a medical
device "Velvet" a long time before he named a mic "Velvet", because he
got the trademark or what ever it's called.
Ralf
5:04 p.m.
David Robillard wrote:
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 14:33 +0200, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
As I've written, a logo in Germany can be a trademark, but you need to
register a trademark, while the graphic design of a logo automatically
is copyright by the artist, this might be easier in other countries and
for me a reason to discuss it. Maybe you know less about international
copyright laws too ;). In Germany a logo automatically is copyright, but
not a trademark.
Also very important:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Dunno what's called trademark and what's
called copyright
Then you probably shouldn't be attempting to discuss copyright law
-dr If you agree to it verbally
! or if a job title implies something, e.g. "employed as developer for a
company that makes money by your work". You can't register a patent on
something you develop for an employer who pays you to develop for the
employer, if it isn't stipulated in another way.
9:59 a.m.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:48:45PM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students
...'.
[This] is certainly not correct for any normal student
who would actually be paying the institute instead
of the reverse. (..) it would seem morally wrong (to me)
if the institute 'grabs' his copyright.
While I'd tend to agree the institute 'grabbing' students'
copyright seems like a morally questionable affair, i believe
it is quite common for universities to have students sign a
document saying the copyright to anything they do for their
university work belongs to the university. Afaik this is
both legally and morally shakey, and institutions don't try
to enforce it.
Of course, it's quite possible that the students in Prof.
Keller's case were actually paid or otherwise compensated
for this work.
And what would be the situation of (again, just an
example) Prof. Keller himself ? Certainly he is an
employee of his educational institute.
Right - copyrights to the work would 'by default' belong
to the institution, but you could of course make other
arrangements to reward the copyrights back to the author,
or get permission to release them under the GPL.
Arnout
5:25 p.m.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Fons Adriaensen<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
Prof. Keller writes 'We employ the students
...'.
That would certainly be the case for a post-graduate
student who becomes a teaching or research assistant
and who receives a stipend from the institute or any
of its sponsors. The transfer of copyright is usually
stipulated in the contract in this case (and in some
cases, it has to be and is not automatic).
It is certainly not correct for any normal student
I'm sure it depends on the country and the institute. I think you
would be right in the normal UK case -- I believe that students
(including PhD students) retain the copyright to their own work, but
in many (though not all) cases the employing institute owns the
copyright of work carried out by post-doc research assistants or other
employees. The latter is of course only the case because they have
signed contracts that specify that.
Merely being paid for your work is not enough to imply that the
institute owns your copyright -- I spent a year or so early in my
current post on a paid contract that explicitly granted me copyright,
which is why my own name appears at the top of some of Sonic
Visualiser's (GPL) source code as well as the name of my employer.
(That contract may have been given to me by mistake, but I believe
such terms are still routinely used in some places.)
For what it's worth, I can't imagine any normal situation in which
work done by a student could have its copyright owned by a professor
or other academic employee rather than the student or institute (other
than explicit assignment on request).
Of course it's not necessarily wrong to remove individual copyrights
from a header if you replace them with a suitable copyright
declaration elsewhere in the work. For example, in Rosegarden at the
moment we are in the process of replacing "copyright X, Y, and Z" with
a general "Rosegarden development team" copyright and identifying
holders by name in a single file at the source code root, though we do
leave the notes in in special cases where a particular chunk was
completely provided by a third party. So long as authors are properly
identified with the work as a whole, I don't think there is anything
problematic about that.
The authors themselves are the people who need to be happy about this
-- it isn't up to the users or other commenters how the authors are
credited. The situation with students is a matter for concern mainly
because they are often not aware of what their standing is, and
institutes sometimes don't like to make it any clearer for them. So
it's worth the reminder that they do actually have some identity as
real people as well as as students.
Chris
5386
days inactive
5390
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
51 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Arnold Krille -
Arnout Engelen -
Chris Cannam -
Dave Phillips -
David Robillard -
drew Roberts -
Fons Adriaensen -
Gene Heskett -
Jack O'Quin -
jaromil -
keller -
laseray＠gmail.com -
Patrick Shirkey -
Ralf Mardorf -
Raymond Martin
-
Thorsten Wilms