Question somewhat related -- is Affero GPL a license designed to make sure that if you're using a program over a network, someone can't legally change that program without you knowing and seeing the changes, for example to prevent screwing with you? For example, they couldn't change some online program to suddenly save your credit card info and send it out to their friends, or spy on information that it is supposedly encrypting?<br>
<br>Peace, community, justice,<br>- George<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Luigi Bai <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lpb@focalpoint.com">lpb@focalpoint.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Sunday, 25 April 2010, Eric Goldhagen wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> Thanks for pointing out some of the flaws in my argument, your<br>
> objections will inform my future debates and presentations about the<br>
> GPL.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>In so far as I'm helping refine your argument, I do it from a position of<br>
respect for what you and others have accomplished and are trying to<br>
implement.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> In my opinion, as stated earlier, I do not agree that work for hire<br>
> is a valid option for Free Software development because it denies<br>
> rights to the author of the code.<br>
><br>
> Because work for hire assigns the creation of code to the client, not<br>
> the coder, this means that the code can be kept private (it does not<br>
> fall into the category of having been distributed). This therefor<br>
> keeps code from those that the GPL aims to ensure access to. As such,<br>
> in my opinion, work for hire agreements violate at least the spirit<br>
> of the GPL.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>The GPL grants the /freedom/ to distribute, but it's not a /duty/. Users can<br>
take a GPL work and add to it, and use the combination without distributing<br>
the changes or the combined work:<br>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic</a>.<br>
<br>
Private modification of GPL works is explicitly allowed; that covers changes<br>
you make, changes your employees make, and changes made for you by<br>
contractors under a work-for-hire regime. No one can be compelled to release<br>
any changes to a GPL work (again, Affero GPL is a different analysis).<br>
However if the work is ever conveyed to another party, the conveyer takes on<br>
the responsibility of making the corresponding source code available to the<br>
recipient as well.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> This is no way changes my statement. Whether my client or I own the<br>
> copyright, in terms of my rights to re-use, distribute and modify<br>
> code licensed under the GPL, there is no difference. This is what is<br>
> important to me -- being able to reuse and distribute code I write.<br>
> In that context I don't care if my client wants to own copyright or<br>
> not, my rights are protected either way.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I am not a lawyer! So this is not and can't be legal advice. But this seems<br>
like a logical conclusion: to effect what you want, it seems to me your<br>
lawyer must include one of at least two things in your contract:<br>
<br>
1. As you do now, make sure you do not assign the copyright to the client.<br>
Release/convey the code to the client under the GPL, with exceptions to link<br>
with GPL-incompatible code if that's required for it to function (for<br>
example, to integrate with a proprietary or non-GPL-compatible data source or<br>
web service).<br>
<br>
2. If you can't accomplish #1, assign the copyright to the client as a<br>
work-for-hire, with an explicit grant to you under the GPL. It may be<br>
circumcribed to avoid release of anything confidential, proprietary, or<br>
trade-secret related, if necessary. You can then contractually use and<br>
release the code to the world; it will say "Copyright 2010 by [Client]", but<br>
can have your name as author.<br>
<br>
With the caveat that you should run it by a lawyer, it appears to me that both<br>
options get you the right to use and release the code under the GPL and be<br>
identified as the author for reputation purposes.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Luigi<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
consulting mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting" target="_blank">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>