I assume he means the trademark for Koha, and other such things. Not the actual copyright of the code itself. I think the issue has been mis-worded. Kyle On 4/27/07, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:

...

I realise that, for instance, the Koha copyright is given to katipo (and it's written in almost every script). [...]

Is it? I have never assigned any copyright to Katipo and I don't intend to assign it to LibLime. I'd consider assigning it to an independent third party, or preferably issuing a fiduciary licence.

However, if LibLime has taken over Katipo's copyright, we probably should update the headers.

Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel

-- IT Tech Crawford County Federated Library System

As far as the GPL is concerned, MJ is correct in that the copyright of each persons contributions are still held by themselves. Katipo holds the copyright for alot of the code, Liblime holds the copyright for alot of it too. Just because Katipo wrote the original code does not mean that all modifications and additions are theirs. I hold the copyright for any code I've added, such as RotatingCollections.pm. For this reason, the license for Koha could not be changed without the agreement of every person who has worked on Koha. The same as with the Linux kernel. At least, this is how it works in the United States. I'm not well versed in French or British copyright law. Kyle On 4/27/07, Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:

Kyle Hall a écrit :

...

I assume he means the trademark for Koha, and other such things. Not the actual copyright of the code itself. I think the issue has been mis-worded.

Not at all, i did not "mis-word the issue" ;-)

On almost each file, is written : # Copyright 2000-2002 Katipo Communications # Look for example head/C4/Biblio.pm (was the script open on my desktop, I did not choose)

About trademark : i've trademarked Koha for france, I think libLime did it for US and katipo for NZ. None of us intend to use this trademark, but thus we avoid someone else using is and suing us ;-)

-- Paul POULAIN et Henri Damien LAURENT Consultants indépendants en logiciels libres et bibliothéconomie (http://www.koha-fr.org) Tel : 04 91 31 45 19

-- IT Tech Crawford County Federated Library System

Hi, Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> writes:

# Copyright 2000-2002 Katipo Communications

Theoretically, you should now have a header of this kind: # Copyright 2000-2002 Katipo Communications # Copyright 2002-2004 Katipo Communications, Paul Poulain # Copyright 2004-2007 Katipo Communications, Paul Poulain, Liblime # Copyright 2007 Paul Poulain, Liblime I mean you should not erase 2000-2002 Katipo. Bye -- Pierrick LE GALL

Pierrick LE GALL <pierrick@koha-fr.org> wrote:

Theoretically, you should now have a header of this kind: # Copyright 2000-2002 Katipo Communications # Copyright 2002-2004 Katipo Communications, Paul Poulain # Copyright 2004-2007 Katipo Communications, Paul Poulain, Liblime # Copyright 2007 Paul Poulain, Liblime

Ouch. Surely that could be replaced by the shorter: # Copyright 2000-2007 Katipo Communications # Copyright 2002-2007 Paul Poulain # Copyright 2004-2007 LibLime ? But I think Katipo can be replaced by LibLime if Katipo have assigned their copyright to LibLime as part of the recent changes. (This is all ugly. Let's at least write useful comments like POD AUTHORS sections.) Regards, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

1. FORM OF COPYRIGHT NOTICE AND POTENTIAL RELICENSING RISKS. The form of copyright notices may reflect a supposition about the nature of the type of authorship a work has and what rights individual copyright holders have in the work as a whole. The consequences vary by legal system and can be counterintuitive as well as posing risks to ensuring the work as a whole might be relicensed under a "non-copyleft" license. Significantly more familiarity with copyright law is needed to understand these issues than is otherwise required to understand the GPL. I presume that we all have a reasonable common understanding of enough copyright law to understand the GPL and correctly apply its terms. If you believe that you know everything of importance for how copyright law relates to software projects, then skip to section 5. 2. AUTHORSHIP CATEGORIES. 2.1. GENERAL AUTHORSHIP CATEGORIES. 2.1.1. ORIGINAL WORKS. 2.1.1.1. ORIGINAL WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. Computer programs are generally considered a subcategory of literary works, although, they are sometimes treated separately, especially under French law. 2.1.1.1.1. BRITISH LAW. "Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—" "(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works," ... Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 1. 2.1.1.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "Copyright is a property right that exists, in accordance with this Act, in original works ..." Copyright Act 1994 s 14. 2.1.1.1.3. UNITED STATES LAW. "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression ..." 17 U.S.C. § 102. 2.1.1.1.4. FRENCH LAW. "L'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit jouit sur cette oeuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d'un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous." Article L111-1. English translation: "The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which shall be enforceable against all persons." Article L111-1. 2.1.2. DERIVATIVE WORKS. 2.1.2.1. DERIVATIVE WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. The British legal tradition lacks an explicit treatment of derivative works in the copyright act except for adaptation, however, the common law tradition for other types of transformations may be presumed to be roughly similar to what is explicitly enacted in United States and French law. 2.1.2.1.1. UNITED STATES LAW. "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work"." 17 U.S.C. § 101. 2.1.2.1.2. FRENCH LAW. "Les auteurs de traductions, d'adaptations, transformations ou arrangements des oeuvres de l'esprit jouissent de la protection instituée par le présent code sans préjudice des droits de l'auteur de l'oeuvre originale. Il en est de même des auteurs d'anthologies ou de recueils d'oeuvres ou de données diverses, tels que les bases de données, qui, par le choix ou la disposition des matières, constituent des créations intellectuelles." Article L112-3. English translation: "The authors of translations, adaptations, transformations or arrangements of works of the mind shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Code, without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original work. The same shall apply to the authors of anthologies or collections of miscellaneous works or data, such as databases, which, by reason of the selection or the arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations." Article L112-3. 2.2. MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP CATEGORIES. 2.2.1. COMPILATIONS. 2.2.1.1. COMPILATIONS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 2.2.1.1.1. BRITISH LAW. 2.2.1.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "Compilation includes—" "(a)A compilation consisting wholly of works or parts of works; and" "(b)A compilation consisting partly of works or parts of works; and" "(c)A compilation of data other than works or parts of works:" Copyright Act 1994 s 2. 2.2.1.1.1. UNITED STATES LAW. "A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation" includes collective works." 17 U.S.C. § 101. 2.2.1.1.2. FRENCH LAW. "Est dite composite l'oeuvre nouvelle à laquelle est incorporée une oeuvre préexistante sans la collaboration de l'auteur de cette dernière." Article L113-2. English Translation: "“Composite work” shall mean a new work in which a preexisting work is incorporated without the collaboration of the author of the latter work." Article L113-2. 2.2.1.2. COMPILATION SUBTYPES. 2.2.1.2.1. COLLECTIVE WORKS. 2.2.1.2.1.1. COLLECTIVE WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. The British legal tradition treats joint works as a subcategory of collective works. United States and French law does not include collaborative joint works as subcategory of collective works which are not necessarily collaborative. 2.2.1.2.1.1.1. BRITISH LAW. ""collective work" means--" "(a) a work of joint authorship, or" "(b) a work in which there are distinct contributions by different authors or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated;" Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 178. 2.2.1.2.1.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "Collective work means—" "(a)A work of joint authorship; or" "(b)A work in which there are distinct contributions by different authors or in which works, or parts of works, of different authors are incorporated:" Copyright Act 1994 s 2. 2.2.1.2.1.1.3. UNITED STATES LAW. "A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." 17 U.S.C. § 101. 2.2.1.2.1.1.4. FRENCH LAW. "Est dite collective l'oeuvre créée sur l'initiative d'une personne physique ou morale qui l'édite, la publie et la divulgue sous sa direction et son nom et dans laquelle la contribution personnelle des divers auteurs participant à son élaboration se fond dans l'ensemble en vue duquel elle est conçue, sans qu'il soit possible d'attribuer à chacun d'eux un droit distinct sur l'ensemble réalisé." Article L113-2. English Translation: "“Collective work” shall mean a work created at the initiative of a natural or legal person who edits it, publishes it and discloses it under his direction and name and in which the personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created." Article L113-2. 2.2.2. JOINT WORK. 2.2.1.1. JOINT WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 2.2.1.1.1. BRITISH LAW. "In this Part a "work of joint authorship" means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors." Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 10(1). 2.2.1.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "In this Act, the term work of joint authorship means a work produced by the collaboration of 2 or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors." Copyright Act 1994 s 6(1). 2.2.1.1.3. UNITED STATES LAW. "A "joint work" is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole." 17 U.S.C. § 101. 2.2.1.1.4. FRENCH LAW. "Est dite de collaboration l'oeuvre à la création de laquelle ont concouru plusieurs personnes physiques." Article L113-2. English Translation: "“Work of collaboration” shall mean a work in the creation of which more than one natural person has participated." Article L113-2. 3. MORAL RIGHTS OF AUTHORS. Moral rights of authors are part of the legal foundation of rights over intellectual production in many European countries and the legal systems of other countries based upon them. Copyright law countries have increasingly been adopting author moral rights into their own copyright laws. Author's moral rights at some level generally survive assignment of rights or the copyright being held by an employer. 3.1. IDENTIFICATION RIGHT. Authors moral rights law includes the right to be identified as the author of their work. 3.1.1. IDENTIFICATION RIGHT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. Under United States law, moral rights of identification only cover authors of works of visual art. 3.1.1.1. FRENCH LAW. "L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre." "Ce droit est attaché à sa personne." "Il est perpétuel, inaliénable et imprescriptible." "Il est transmissible à cause de mort aux héritiers de l'auteur." "L'exercice peut être conféré à un tiers en vertu de dispositions testamentaires." Article L121-1. English translation: "An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work." "This right shall attach to his person." "It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author." "Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will." Article L121-1. 3.1.2. EXCEPTION TO IDENTIFICATION RIGHT. Among the exceptions to the identification right are often computer programs and computer-generated works. 3.1.2.1. EXCEPTION TO IDENTIFICATION RIGHT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 3.1.2.1.1. BRITISH LAW. Computer programs and computer-generated works are specific exception to the moral rights of authors to be identified, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 79(2)(a) and (c). 3.1.2.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. Computer programs and computer-generated works are specific exception to the moral rights of authors to be identified, Copyright Act 1994 s 97(2)(a-b). 3.2. EXPLOITATION RIGHT. 3.2.1. EXPLOITATION RIGHT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. Under French law, an author has the right to withdraw from an assignment, however, the original assignee has the right of first refusal when.if the author later attempts to exploit the work withdrawn. 3.2.1.1. FRENCH LAW. "Nonobstant la cession de son droit d'exploitation, l'auteur, même postérieurement à la publication de son oeuvre, jouit d'un droit de repentir ou de retrait vis-à-vis du cessionnaire. Il ne peut toutefois exercer ce droit qu'à charge d'indemniser préalablement le cessionnaire du préjudice que ce repentir ou ce retrait peut lui causer. Lorsque, postérieurement à l'exercice de son droit de repentir ou de retrait, l'auteur décide de faire publier son oeuvre, il est tenu d'offrir par priorité ses droits d'exploitation au cessionnaire qu'il avait originairement choisi et aux conditions originairement déterminées." Article L121-4. English translation: "Notwithstanding assignment of his right of exploitation, the author shall enjoy a right to reconsider or of withdrawal, even after publication of his work, with respect to the assignee. However, he may only exercise that right on the condition that he indemnify the assignee beforehand for any prejudice the reconsideration or withdrawal may cause him. If the author decides to have his work published after having exercised his right to reconsider or of withdrawal, he shall be required to offer his rights of exploitation in the first instance to the assignee he originally chose and under the conditions originally determined." Article L121-4. 4. CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT. 4.1. GENERAL CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT. 4.1.1. GENERAL CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. Copyright rests first with authors. Employers are often naive in holding a belief that they have an automatic right to the copyright of works created by their employees. United States case law is filled with instances where works which were created outside the direct control of the party commissioning the work or independent of a commission by an employer were not considered works for hire, therefore, the employer was not found to have a claim on copyright ownership in those instances. French law seems to read as if a specific contract assigning copyright to the employer is required for employers to control copyright. In all instances, a specific contract stating that the work is a work for hire and assigning copyright to the employer, which may include a grant back to the employee, is important for assuring that the employer will have a copyright interest the work. A specific contract is especially important for the employer interest in the case of independent contractors or employees who's employment scope does not ordinarily cover creating such works for the employer. Some legal systems treat the party retaining first control of copyright as if that party is the author of the work whether or not that party is the actual author of the work. 4.1.1.1. BRITISH LAW. "(1) The author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in it, subject to the following provisions." "(2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary." Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 11. "Copyright is transmissible by assignment, by testamentary disposition or by operation of law, as personal or moveable property." Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 90(1). 4.1.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, the person who is the author of a work is the first owner of any copyright in the work." "(2)Where an employee makes, in the course of his or her employment, a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, that person's employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work." "(3)Where--" "(a)A person commissions, and pays or agrees to pay for, the taking of a photograph or the making of a computer program, painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, model, sculpture, film, or sound recording; and" "(b)The work is made in pursuance of that commission,--" "that person is the first owner of any copyright in the work." "(4)Subsections (2) and (3) of this section apply subject to any agreement to the contrary." Copyright Act 1994 s 21. "Copyright is transmissible, as personal or moveable property, by-- "(a) Assignment; or" "(b) Testamentary disposition; or" "(c) Operation of law." Copyright Act 1994 s 113(1). 4.1.1.3. UNITED STATES LAW. "(a) Initial Ownership. - Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. ..." "(b) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. ... "(d) Transfer of Ownership. - " "(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession." "(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title." 17 U.S.C. § 201. 4.1.1.4. FRENCH LAW. "La qualité d'auteur appartient, sauf preuve contraire, à celui ou à ceux sous le nom de qui l'oeuvre est divulguée." Article L113-1. "L'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit jouit sur cette oeuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d'un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous." "Ce droit comporte des attributs d'ordre intellectuel et moral ainsi que des attributs d'ordre patrimonial, qui sont déterminés par les livres Ier et III du présent code." "L'existence ou la conclusion d'un contrat de louage d'ouvrage ou de service par l'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit n'emporte pas dérogation à la jouissance du droit reconnu par le premier alinéa, sous réserve des exceptions prévues par le présent code. ..." Article L111-1. English translation: "Authorship shall belong, unless proved otherwise, to the person or persons under whose name the work has been disclosed." Article L113-1. "The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which shall be enforceable against all persons." "This right shall include attributes of an intellectual and moral nature as well as attributes of an economic nature, as determined by Books I and III of this Code." "The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above. ..." Article L111-1. 4.2. AUTHORSHIP CATEGORIES CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT. 4.2.1. MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP CATEGORIES CONTROL OF COPYRIGHT. 4.2.1.1. COMPILATIONS. 4.2.1.1.1. COMPILATIONS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 4.2.1.1.1.1. FRENCH LAW. "L'oeuvre composite est la propriété de l'auteur qui l'a réalisée, sous réserve des droits de l'auteur de l'oeuvre préexistante." Article L113-4. English translation: "A composite work shall be the property of the author who has produced it, subject to the rights of the author of the preexisting work." Article L113-4. 4.2.1.1.2. COLLECTIVE WORKS. 4.2.1.1.2.1. COLLECTIVE WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. 4.2.1.1.2.1.1. UNITED STATES LAW. "(c) Contributions to Collective Works. - Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series." 17 U.S.C. § 201. 4.2.1.1.2.1.2. FRENCH LAW. "L'oeuvre collective est, sauf preuve contraire, la propriété de la personne physique ou morale sous le nom de laquelle elle est divulguée." "Cette personne est investie des droits de l'auteur." Article L113-5. English translation: "A collective work shall be the property, unless proved otherwise, of the natural or legal person under whose name it has been disclosed." "The author’s rights shall vest in such person." Article L113-5. 4.2.1.2. JOINT WORKS. 4.2.1.2.1. JOINT WORKS IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS. Under United States law, each author of a joint work has an undivided copyright over the work as whole and can act independently upon his interest in the work as a whole independently of the other joint authors. Under French law, the authors of a joint work are required to act in common agreement with respect to their copyright interest in the work as a whole. 4.2.1.2.1.1. BRITISH LAW. "References in this Part to the author of a work shall, except as otherwise provided, be construed in relation to a work of joint authorship as references to all the authors of the work." Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 10(3). 4.2.1.2.1.2. NEW ZEALAND LAW. "References in this Act to the author of a work shall be construed in relation to a work of joint authorship as a reference to all the authors of the work." Copyright Act 1994 s 6(3). 4.2.1.2.1.3. UNITED STATES LAW. "The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work." 17 U.S.C. § 201. 4.2.1.2.1.4. FRENCH LAW. "L'oeuvre de collaboration est la propriété commune des coauteurs." "Les coauteurs doivent exercer leurs droits d'un commun accord." "En cas de désaccord, il appartient à la juridiction civile de statuer." "Lorsque la participation de chacun des coauteurs relève de genres différents, chacun peut, sauf convention contraire, exploiter séparément sa contribution personnelle, sans toutefois porter préjudice à l'exploitation de l'oeuvre commune." Article L113-3. English translation: "A work of collaboration shall be the joint property of its authors." "The joint authors shall exercise their rights by common accord." "In the event of failure to agree, the civil courts shall decide." "Where the contribution of each of the joint authors is of a different kind, each may, unless otherwise agreed, separately exploit his own personal contribution without, however, prejudicing the exploitation of the common work." Article L113-3. 5. COPYRIGHT LAW AND LICENSING ISSUES FOR A SOFTWARE PROJECT. 5.1. MULTIPLE AUTHORSHIP CATEGORY FOR SOFTWARE PROJECTS. The multiple authorship category applying to a software project may be quite uncertain under law. Good arguments may be made to treat the software released by a project as either a collective work or a joint work. 5.1.1. PROJECTS AS COLLECTIVE WORKS. Software projects might be considered collective works when a release maintainer selects individual contributions to appear in a release. In a collective work without any assignment for licensing purposes, the release manager would be understood to be the party designated to control any relicensing. The release managers designated designated relicensing authority could only come from the authority granted by each and every individual copyright holder without exception if the work is a collective work. 5.1.2. PROJECTS AS JOINT WORKS. Software projects might be considered joint works which the authors collaborate in producing. The designation joint work may seem especially appropriate when individual contributions do not have a functional purpose independent from the work as a whole. An authorship interest is a question of importance for the work as a whole independent of the relative size of the contribution. Each joint author is considered to hold an equal interest over the work as a whole. Different legal systems differ in how joint work copyright is controlled for the purpose of relicensing in the absence of assignment of copyright. The hazard under United States copyright law is that any joint author could relicense the work as a whole without consultation under any license with only the obligation to provide royalties to the other authors. Dependency issues might limit that risk but some money could be used to obtain other licenses for some needed dependencies. 5.2. DERIVATIVE WORKS IN SOFTWARE. 5.2.1. FUNCTIONALLY DERIVATIVE WORKS. Any software code which is linked or combined with any other code so as to establish a functional dependency is a derivative work of the other code. Copyright law itself provides very little guidance on this question because it seldom treats software specifically. Many issues relating to software have seldom been litigated in court because all sides wisely avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation when one misguided judge may set a bad precedent. Many lawyers disagree with this Free Software Foundation interpretation of derivative works. Those who disagree cite examples such as hyperlinking of data as cases where linking is obviously no different from a citation in a strictly literary work which is not derivative. Those objections rest on the false premise that there is no qualitative difference between linking data and linking functionality. When functionality is linked, the derivative work cannot function as intended without the dependent code. A failure from absent functionality is of an entirely different nature from a possible failure due to missing data. 5.2.2. DEPENDENCIES UNDER THE GPL. The GPL frees us from worry about the derivative works problem as long as all dependencies allow licensing under the version of the GPL being used in the project. Just released GPL 3 and AGPL 3 when it is released will allow even broader linking with software under other non-GPL licenses. There are many advantages of both licenses for both users and developers. However, everyone has to check to be certain that no code is GPL 2 only before it can be linked with code under GPL 3 or forthcoming AGPL 3. I will have much more to say about the merits of GPL 3 and AGPL 3 for both users and developers at a later time. I will argue in due course that AGPL 3 or a later version with its 'copyleft' protections for network services programs such as Koha is the only license with should be used for Koha in future. As a network services program Koha has no effective 'copyleft' protection under GPL 2 or GPL 3. 5.3. ASSIGNMENT FOR SOFTWARE PROJECTS. The only way to resolve the problems of the category of multiple authorship for software projects is to have copyright assignments to a trusted entity with a grant back of rights for authors' own individual contributions. Assignment is also the only way to ensure that there will be an entity with legal standing to act to protect the copyright interest in all the code in case of a GPL violation. Individual copyright holders may be constrained in only being able to defend that portion of the code which they contributed. Gentle persuasion is actually the best remedy for GPL violations in the experience of the Free Software Foundation but such persuasion is always backed by an understanding that they have the legal capacity to pursue other means to protect the software code assigned to them. I will have a specific proposal for how assignments with a grant back should work for Koha but we first need an inclusive trusted entity with good governance. Such an entity should include protecting the 'copyleft' nature of the Koha code as a fundamental part of its charter. In the absence of any other organisation, I am happy to consider that Kohala may be a suitable entity. Kohala does have the advantage of being based in a country which has not yet become a regime which recognises business method and software patents. 5.4. PATENT LITIGATION RISKS. I will post a text explaining the hazards for business method and software patents along with an evaluation of the strategies to avoid their worst effects. GPL 3 and AGPL 3 will sadly offer little protection because doing any more than what they will do for protection from patent abuse would have led to a fork of GPL code by major business interests which want to preserve the advantages they have in abusing the patent system. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com 212-674-3783

Message inline: 1. LEGAL RESEARCH. On Wed, July 4, 2007 2:09 am, MJ Ray wrote:

"Thomas Dukleth" <kohadevel@agogme.com> wrote: [...]

...

The hazard under United States copyright law is that any joint author could relicense the work as a whole without consultation under any license with only the obligation to provide royalties to the other authors. This goes against what I've been told so often, so I hope you don't mind me getting a second opinion.

Please do obtain another opinion. I could supply further references and case law citations but maybe you want to find your own sources to be certain of complete independence so that I will not have selected them for you. If you manage to find any US decision from recent decades which contradicts the rule I identified, please be certain to Shepardize the decision. Remember that I make no particular claim about what category of multiple author work Koha actually is. I merely draw attention to some categories which have problematic aspects. 2. AGREEMENT. I also trust Koha developers not to act without consultation and agreement despite what might be allowed under US law. However, given certain problems under US law it is better to actually provide legal assurances as well as actually acting respectfully of others. This is a question of being seen to act correctly in addition to acting correctly. 3. COPYLEFT.

[...]

...

The GPL frees us from worry about the derivative works problem as long as all dependencies allow licensing under the version of the GPL being used in the project.

Just released GPL 3 and AGPL 3 when it is released will allow even broader linking with software under other non-GPL licenses. [...]

This has the drawback of continuing the license soup. In a way, I don't mind that, but I'm surprised that FSF are finally weakening the GPL's strong copyleft. It's disappointing that it's weakened to allow the possible AGPL'ing of GPL'd software's output.

I do not interpret the FSF changes in GPL 3 as weakening the copyleft nature of the GPL in comparison to GPL 2. 3.1. FSF LICENSE DRAFT COMMENT SYSTEM. I wish we could have discussed those issues in the GPL 3 comment system where they would have informed the drafting of GPL 3. Most people have had problems with the FSF license draft comment system. I have had my own problems where I had to repost comments two times before the line breaks would appear for a readable comment. Sometimes I had to restart my web browser to post any comment. The XPath code also failed to highlight the selected draft text for my last GPL 3 draft comment. 3.1.1. AGPL 3 DISCUSSION. I encourage you to take discussion of AGPL 3 at this time to the AGPL 3 draft comment system where it may inform the drafting of the AGPL. The current URL is http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-1.html , however, you should check to see if a new AGPL 3 discussiion draft has been released. AGPL 3 discussion draft 2, which has not been released yet, should have reciprocal changes for section 13 paragraph 2 corresponding to changes for section 13 from GPL 3 discussion draft 4 to the final released text of GPL 3. I recognise the problems of the FSF license drafts comment system but I can help you work around them if you are willing to try. Using Mozilla based browsers; running the browser with JavaScript enabled by default; restarting the browser before a comment session; avoiding successive blank lines; and closing all double quotes before a blank line will help avoid problems with the comment system in general and problems with line breaks in particular. If you still have problems, I could post your comments on your behalf with your permission under my username giving you attribution or under another username giving you attribution. I know that you have valuable things to say about the issues which could lead to a better license. If you have trouble reading comments using the JavaScript comment system or want a more reliable location for viewing comments, both parent and child comments for AGPL discussion draft 1 appear in list form at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'agplv3-draft-1'&Order=DESC as they are posted. If other means of commenting on the drafts do not work for you, http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html has instructions for how to add comments by email. Child comments cannot be added by email which is a significant limitation for using email. Email comments may not appear readily in the comment system either. Discussion in terms of how to protect software freedom for all users while minimising interference with software developer freedoms are most likely to successfully influence FSF. Certainly, other factors have a bearing on what free software is created but are less likely to successfully influence the FSF. Every comment is read by Eben Moglen personally in addition to others at FSF and associated working groups who read the comments and make further recommendations. The license drafts have changed in direct response to comments in the comment system including my own. The influence you would have over the drafting process by discussion on the koha-devel list is minimal except to the extent that it may inform the comments in the FSF license drafts comment system which others such as myself make. 3.2. NETWORK SERVICES.

...

I will have much more to say about the merits of GPL 3 and AGPL 3 for both users and developers at a later time. [...]

At that time, I will have much more to say about the drawbacks of applying licence terms to Koha's output in the way that AGPL does. I feel that The Only Way drum is being banged a bit hard about this. In essence, if III or whoever wants to spend time studying and adapting Koha code (within the current copyleft terms) into their system, good luck to them. While they're watching us, let's be watching the road ahead and blazing the trail, making the money!

I will qualify my presumption to "the only way I know" but I would be pleased to know of others. Any time I make a similarly narrow presumption you should read it as being qualified as such by reasonable implication. In the distant past, I tended to explicitly qualify all my assertions, however, such explicit qualifications obstructed the readability of everything I wrote and made me seem indecisive when I was not indecisive. I would also much prefer to spend my time developing code rather than working on licensing issues. I have raised some issues at this time because related issues had already been raised by others in which I had seen some mistaken understanding of copyright law. 3.2.1. DISINTEGRATING THE ILS. I actually want to encourage the disintegration of ILS modules to the extent that it may be practical and useful. Standardised data exchange protocols could be used to communicate between modules. Users should be able to mix and match modules to use with whatever software suits them.including proprietary software as long as the users freedom in free software modules are preserved. Paul Poulain and I have suggested elements of such disintegration previously. Opencataloger, a currently disintegrated record editor under development, could be used as a possible example of such disintegration. This suggestion does not give an advantage to proprietary software but would allow libraries using proprietary software to use some parts of Koha alongside their proprietary systems. This may be analogous to how GNU/Linux systems first gained a foothold in many corporate computing environments as web servers and print servers. 3.2.2. ALL USERS FREEDOMS VERSUS DEVELOPERS FREEDOMS. The GPL is not generally concerned with allowing or protecting particular business models. although, some business models have succeeded in the context of the GPL and others have been disadvantaged in the market. The FSF goal is to protect all software users freedoms first and software developers freedoms second. I repeat that terms of argument which have the most influence at FSF are how to best protect all users freedoms with the minimum interference with developer freedoms. However, FSF has compromised its principles in the GPL license slightly to avoid a code fork by large business intersts. Only interests opposed to free software want to see a code fork of GPL software. Certainly, business factors are a significant in determining what free software is developed. In attempting to avoid a code fork over GPL software, FSF hopes to serve the interest of all users better than if FSF had rigidly held to its principles in all of the GPL 3 license terms. I would like to confine my discussion of all users freedoms versus developers freedoms to the FSF license drafts comment system as much as possible at the current time. In fairness to your assertion, I will address some business issues here which I tend to avoid in discussions in the FSF license drafts comment system. 3.2.3. NETWORK SERVICES MARKETS. At some future time, Koha is likely to include features which may interest some well funded proprietary companies. Within the supposed scope of private modification, GPL software running on a network server may be treated as if it is proprietary and combined with other proprietary code to offer a network service to users. Such a service would have no obligations to respect the rights that the ultimate users or authors of the GPL part would have had if the software had been conveyed for the ultimate users to examine or run locally. That may not be a problem for you if you assert that it is not. I do not necessarily have a concern about proprietary ILS software companies. My concern is about much larger organisations which have monopolies or near monopolies in important markets. The prospects of free software gaining a sustaining base of users in some monopoly dominated markets are generally proportionate to the distinctiveness of the features the free software offers. 3.2.4. USER TERMS OF EVALUATION. Free software has succeeded in attracting large numbers of users mostly by appealing to the terms under which users evaluate proprietary software. Users evaluate proprietary software in terms of marketing strength, functionality, and cost. Free software often fairs favourably in terms of features as compared to proprietary software. Features of free software may not be undeniably better than comparable features of proprietary software. but free software often has important features which are not available in proprietary software. In markets about which I am concerned, software running on a network server often provides services to users without any direct charge for offering the services. Revenue for the primary no charge software services in such a context usually comes from related incidental services offered to all users. In such markets, the primary services usually have no charge and the incidental services have roughly comparable charges, therefore, cost is not a significant differentiating factor for the users. New entrants offering network services in such markets have cost disadvantages for offering their services to the users including lack of the economies of scale for both the primary and incidental services which the dominant monopolies have. If organisations which have monopoly influence in some markets are able to treat modified GPL software as if it is proprietary software merely by operating services on a network server, then ultimate software users in those markets are unlikely to obtain the benefits of free software as free software. In terms that most users understand how to value, there would then be little differentiation between modified GPL software being presented as proprietary and GPL software offered independently. If private modifications combine proprietary software with privately modified GPL software all the features of both the proprietary and the GPL software could be presented as proprietary to the ultimate users. In terms that most users understand how to value, the differentiation between modified GPL software combined with proprietary software and presented as one proprietary program and GPL software offered independently would be adverse to GPL software. If the GPL software offered independently has no advantages which ultimate users recognise initially, then ultimate users will not choose independently offered GPL software. Ultimate users will never learn to appreciate the other advantages of GPL software if they are not first choosing GPL software in terms that they recognise. 3.2.4.1. ULTIMATE USERS LOSE POTENTIAL FEATURES. 3.2.4.1.1. DEFAULT MARKET CONDITIONS. Consider a market dominated by three organisations offering their primary services at no charge over a network server to ultimate users. The organisations derive revenue from related incidental services. Organisation 1 includes features A, B, C, and D in its proprietary network services. Organisation 2 includes features A, B, C, and E in its proprietary network services. Organisation 3 includes features A, B, C, and F in its proprietary network services. Any of these proprietary features might be derivative works of GPL software created as private modifications running on a network server with no license obligations to the ultimate users of the software. However, I wish to identify another consequence in such a market. 3.2.4.1.2. NEW ENTRANT. New entrant organisation 4 includes features A, B, F, G, and H in its free software network services for which it offers all source code to the ultimate users over the network under the GPL license. Organisation 4 has insufficient capital for marketing to quickly attract a large base of users but expects to attract more users over time and improve its existing features while adding more features. 3.2.4.1.3. MARKET CONDITIONS AFTER NEW ENTRANT. The market dominating organisations may then adopt the features of organisation 4 as modified derivative works combined with their other features. However, unlike organisation 4 the other organisations do not inform the ultimate users that the organisations' software running over the network for users is free software, do not provide any acknowledgement to organisation 4, nor do they provide any access to the source code of their modifications. The market dominating organisations do not act any differently than they had in the past with respect to GPL software. Organisation 1 includes features A, B, C, D, and G in its proprietary network services; but takes longer to develop feature G because it develops feature G independently, using the model provided by organisation 4 but not as a derivative work of the organisation 4 source code. Organisation 2 includes features A, B, C, E, G, and H in its proprietary network services. where features G and H are derivative works of organisation 4 source code. Organisation 3 includes features A, B, C, F, G, and H in its proprietary network services, where features G and H are derivative works of organisation 4 source code. Organisation 4 includes features A, B, G and H in its free software network services. Organisation 4, as an undercapitalised new entrant in the market is unable to obtain enough users to sustain development because it is no longer offering any distinctive features to ultimate users. Without users for the primary services which are offered without charge, there will be few users of the related incidental services from which revenue is derived. Organisation 4 would be unable to afford to improve its own existing features A, B, G, and H and unable to take advantage of closed modifications for features G and H made by the market dominating organisations. Organisation 4 would be unable to afford to develop feature C and derive revenue from incidental services offered in relation to feature C. Organisation 4 would be unable to afford to develop planned features I and J. Ultimate users are unable to obtain the freedoms they would have had in the GPL code if the modifications which organisations 2 and 3 made in those features were conveyed. Ultimate users may have options for features A-H; however, they would not have improvements in those features from organisation 4 nor additional features I and J. 3.2.4.1.4. PRACTISES OF NEW ENTRANTS. Conditions in many important markets are similar to the default conditions which I described. New entrants in such markets wishing to survive follow the same closed proprietary code model of the other organisations dominating the market. Many of the organisations in such markets may contribute something back to the GPL software projects from which they create derivative works as proprietary private modifications which they use to run network services for ultimate users. However, such market conditions discourage conveying high level business applications as free software as distinct from lower level software underlying their high level software. A license which has an effect on modification in a network services context may avoid the problems for free software in such markets. 3.2.5. NEW FEATURES FOR KOHA. I have an interest in the development of features which exist in no library system and seldom exist in systems for other markets. Such features include support for semantic based browsing as distinct from guessed searching without definite knowledge of the indexed terms. My interest is not necessarily in serving libraries directly but in the ultimate users in other much larger information finding markets independent of libraries. I expect to be a good citizen of the Koha community and be able to contribute high level code to Koha without the need to create a code monopoly in order to sustain participating in those larger information finding markets. I hope to reduce the need to offer library support services which do not scale as well as other more passive services, except to the extent of supporting the work of others offering library support services. If at the time I introduce arguments in favour of some particular licenses I fail to persuade everyone in the Koha community to change the Koha license and there is no other solution available, I would then suffer the inconvenience of committing code under a parallel license in parallel files. I hope at that time to either persuade successfully or to have found another solution. Please critique business issues here on the koha-devel list and take other license related issues to the FSF license drafts comment system for the present time. 4. ASSIGNMENTS AND AUTHORS RIGHTS.

[...]

...

The only way to resolve the problems of the category of multiple authorship for software projects is to have copyright assignments to a trusted entity with a grant back of rights for authors' own individual contributions.

It's The Only Way drum again :-( Couldn't we (for example) assign rights among ourselves by territory, with other cooperation agreements? Not saying we will go that way, but Assign To Daddy doesn't seem the only obvious model.

Also, I will check, but I thought most countries had unassignable rights which means that the authors will necessarily be involved in any copyright case anyway.

I will qualify my presumption as above. Your suggestion is very interesting and shows the kind of thinking we need to actually solve problems. Most countries do have unassignable rights or rights which survive assignment. Unfortunately, as I identified in my post; the US, UK, and NZ reserve very little moral rights for software authors. We should all hope to have the moral rights for authors protected by legal systems more like the French system.

[...]

[...]

It may be, but it is not yet one. I would want to see Kohala have a form similar to a English Community Interest Company or secondary cooperative, so we know it can't trade in unfair competition with us on the reserves (our copyrights) which we'd give it.

My thoughts about assignment, which I am not yet ready to fully articulate, include imposing a strict contract on the assignee limiting the terms of assignment. Such terms ought to reduce the risks in assignment. [...] 5. OMISSIONS AND CORRECTIONS. I apologise to those in Turkish, Argentine, and other legal systems which I did not have time to include in my comparative analysis of copyright law. I would be pleased to include others at some future time and post the document in some generally accessible and readable place, especially if I have some assistance from others in obtaining English translations of the relevant copyright laws. I am always pleased to correct any errors of copyright law interpretation I may have. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com 212-674-3783