proper copyright

[adler at stephenadler.com (Stephen Adler)]

Thanks Mat,

The software package I'm thinking of putting together is not something 
which you could readily link in with other code. It's mostly going to be 
"glue" software which ties together a bunch of different OS/GPL'ed 
software packages. The main issue I have is for someone to take it, 
package it as their own, (change the name etc.) and then sell it as 
their own without distributing the code. The nice thing about open 
source is that it does allow someone to take the software and add to it. 
But if they do, then they must include their additions which I can then 
pull right into my own code. So it's a two way street which in the end 
is what makes this whole open source concept work.

I do know of one particular case, where some guy wrote a bunch of 
software for a device used in some industry. One of the companies making 
this device in the industry basically took his code, and started selling 
it, close source, with their device. Since the software author was 
rather good, it turns out that everyone in the field was using his 
software, thus being the popular software for this device, the company 
took advantage of the fact that the software author did not protect 
himself and basically stole his work. This was in the very early days of 
the Internet and newsgroups etc.

I don't want to make the same mistake...


Matthew Gillen wrote:
> Stephen Adler wrote:
>   
>> Guys,
>>
>> I'm thinking of writing a software package in the open source/free
>> software framework. From a legal standpoint, what do I need to do to
>> make it truly free. Basically, I want to protect the project from being
>> high jacked by some entity in the private industry since the source code
>> will be sitting out there freely down loadable.
>>     
>
> What specifically do you want to protect against?  People making money off
> building a product that is based on your code?  Or just protect against
> people taking credit for your code?
>
> For the former, the GPL is your best option.  For the latter, the BSD
> license is a nice one:
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/current-bsdl.html
>
> Even the GPL doesn't protect against products that /use/ your code
> (specifically, if something links with your code, it's a derivative work).
> Supposing they find some way of using your code without linking to it (pipes
> anyone?), then the GPL doesn't infect their code, and as long as they
> distribute the source of /your/ program, they'd be compliant.
>
> Also, the GPL doesn't protect against people charging for distribution
> (think Redhat, SUSE, etc).  It's probably wise to be careful that the
> license you pick doesn't prevent the kind of thing Redhat or Suse does (ie
> charge for distribution, packaging, and support, but don't try and take
> credit for the code).
>
>   
>> Do I need to add a license clause to each text file?
>>     
> IANAL, but I've seen packages that just include a COPYING file in the source
> distribution that contains the license, and everything just says "see the
> COPYING file that came with this distribution".
>
>   
>> Do I need to setup a web page filled with legal language?
>>     
> again, IANAL but that's certainly not how most projects do it (they just use
> the COPYING file in the source-distribution).
>
>   
>> If someone does take the code and repackages in
>> close source form for sale, what legal action could I take to stop them?
>>     
> Entirely depends on the particulars of the license you choose and how they
> violated it.
>
> It's a very sticky issue, where choice of words matters a lot.  That's why
> people tend to use readily made licenses rather than roll their own.
> Check this site for a bunch of common (and well understood) Open-source
> licenses (so called OSI-approved licenses):
> http://opensource.org/licenses/
>
> Have fun,
> Matt
>
>   


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.