[consulting] Proper Collections Procedure

[Gary Feldman]

Eric Goldhagen wrote:
> Same with openflows. We have refused a number of times to sign 
> contracts that define anything as "work for hire." It is our opinion 
> that the legal reality of a work-for-hire agreement is in itself a 
> violation of the GPL. That applies to our relationship with our 
> clients as well as contractors.
 From an ethical perspective, this makes sense, but I don't think that 
work-for-hire violates the GPL.  The GPL is about licensing, not legal 
ownership.  There's nothing in the GPL that keeps any copyright owner 
from selling or reassigning the ownership of the copyright.  Indeed, FSF 
insists that their contributors do so (see 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright).  
Work-for-hire is a little bit different (it changes the original owner), 
but it's the same idea.

> The only way we will take a project is if the client agrees that 
> copyright is assigned to those that created the code and those that 
> paid for it jointly, and all code is released under the GPL (this 
> makes the coder, openflows, and the end client join copyright holders, 
> and tends to satisfy corporate lawyers, F/OSS advocates and our desire 
> to ensure that our efforts stay in the public domain).
Please remember that public domain and GPL are incompatible in a sense.  
Once something is in the public domain, anyone is free to make a 
derivative work that is no longer in the public domain nor subject to 
the GPL.  Of course, anyone else is free to make a different derivative 
work, also no longer in the public domain, and choose to release it 
under the GPL. 

The usual "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimers apply.  Sorry if this is stuff 
you already know, but enough people confuse "public domain" with GPL 
that it's worth pointing out the distinction from time to time.

Gary