[consulting] Copyright

[Eric Goldhagen]

At 1:52 PM -0400 4/24/10, George Lee wrote:
>We stipulate that all code is released under the GPL, so it does not
>matter who owns the copywrite. If the code is GPL, even if the client
>is the copywrite owner, I still get to re-use and contribute that
>code back.
>
>
>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 
>copyright to be able to do that. 
>

The GPL does not prevent them from using the code in other ways, as 
long as those are compatible with the GPL. In fact, the GPL 
guarantees their right to re-use the code. There are GPL compatible 
ways of using GPL code in conjunction with software licensed under 
non-GPL compatible licenses.

I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of what you are talking 
about. Can you give me something more specific?

The way I see it one of the most important aspects of the GPL is that 
it does not care who owns the copyright, only that it is owned by 
someone. Owner and non-owners are granted the same rights.

>
>
>"Work For Hire" agreements are aimed at masking the reality of code
>creation and distribution. In fact, the person doing the work has no
>right to re-use their own code or publicly take credit for its
>creation. As such, I consider Work For Hire agreements as being
>explicitly in violation of the GPL and will never sign any contract
>that contains such an agreement.
>
>
>Can you clarify what you consider in violation -- agreements that 
>say "this *is* work for hire," or agreements that say "this *is not* 
>work for hire"?

In my opinion, agreements that specify that deliverables are 
considered "work for hire" violate the rights granted by the GPL. 
That's the same in cases of me working for someone else, or me hiring 
someone to help with a project.

>
>Also, to clarify -- there's two different scenarios I'm thinking of. 
>One is when a Drupal consulting company contracts out to a 
>programmer; another is when there's basically a one-person 
>consulting company or one person signing a contract. In the former 
>case I could understand why the shop would want to retain ownership 
>over the code. It's the latter case I'm asking about; I'm interested 
>in maintaining copyright over the code I write.

Ah, my examples are from a small company or worker-owned cooperative 
being contracted by a client to do work. That might or might not 
apply to the example you are interested in.

--Eric

>
>
>Peace, community, justice,
>- George
>
>_______________________________________________
>consulting mailing list
>consulting at drupal.org
>http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting


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