[consulting] Copyright

[Eric Goldhagen]

At 2:27 PM -0400 4/24/10, George Lee wrote:
>  >But doesn't this impact the code-writer's ability to relicense the
>>code? Or say there is a part of the code that they want to re-use
>>for a non-Drupal project or non-GPL project -- then they need
>
>
>I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of what you are talking
>about. Can you give me something more specific?
>
>
>
>I don't have a lot of experience with this, but here's an example. 
>Some non-profit wants a web site that will encrypt some sensitive 
>information. I create a Drupal module that does this, and part of 
>this is some functions and code that do some data manipulation and 
>encryption.
>
>Later on, I want to use that code in another project with encryption 
>-- not for Drupal.

This is moving into a very complex area of GPL/copyright law and I am 
not an IP Lawyer but I'll try to give an answer.

If you build on top of Drupal or any other GPL licensed codebase 
*AND* your code calls internal functions of the GPL code, your code 
must be licensed under the GPL (or in some cases licensed under 
another GPL compatible license like the Affero GPL).

You could, in theory release the code under a dual-license so you 
could have more flexibility in the future.

But, once you rip out any drupal functions, the remaining encryption 
code would live in a strange grey area that I'm not sure of. It could 
be that code could be considered separate from the drupal module 
code. We'd have to ask a lawyer.

>
>It might, actually. To clarify more:
>
>Scenario 1: Client Company A (e.g., a school or a pizza shop) 
>contracts to Drupal Consulting Company B. Drupal Consulting Company 
>B subcontracts to little programmer C. In this case I could see why 
>B says, "C -- we'll contract to you to write code for us, but we own 
>it."

I could see why someone would want that, but in my opinion it is not 
in-line with the spirit or letter of the law as it applies to the GPL.

>
>Scenario 2: Client Company A (e.g., a school or a pizza shop) 
>contracts to Little Company B or Little Programmer B.

In either scenario, in my opinion, making the resulting code part of 
a "Work made for hire" agreement is not in-line with the letter or 
spirit of the GPL.

As the other threads you posted show, this is an area where many 
people have many different opinions and "the right answer" is still a 
multiple choice set of options.

 From my perspective, the most important thing someone owns in the 
world of Free Software is what they've done and as a result what 
their reputation is. If I contract to someone to build GPL licensed 
code, I feel a moral (and legal) obligation to at least allow them to 
take credit for their work, share it with others and gain the 
resulting credibility and reputation. This is how we build a 
community of talented developers.

Just a final note: this entire discussion as it applies to the legal 
concept of "work for hire" is very specific to U.S. law and is 
totally different in other countries.

--Eric
-- 
---------------------------------------
Openflows, Inc.
a technology workers cooperative
http://openflows.com
----------------------------