Re: copyrights assignments

[Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>]

* Martin Baulig (martin@home-of-linux.org) wrote at 12:59 on 23/07/00:
> Ali Abdin <aliabdin@aucegypt.edu> writes:
> 
> > Well - recently there was the 'SHEBA' arabic linux distro that
> > 'appears' to violating the GNU GPL and supposedly has a 'patent
> > pending'.
> 
> In which way are they violating the GPL and what patent is this ?

Well - they DO provide patches for Gtk+ and GNOME, but I hear from Owen Taylor
that they link to a closed-source proprietary library (for rendering Arabic
fonts possible).

The patches are provided with 'no hassles' but to download their distro you
have to 'register' some information with them. On that registering page, they
have a notice on top saying 'Patent Pending', but Owen Taylor tells me that
there is nothing really there to Patent (then again, the Patent Office has
issued very stupid patents in the past).
 
> > I contacted RMS about the issue, but he told me that since the
> > copyright isn't assigned to them (the FSF) there was not much they
> > could do.
> > 
> > Right now, it seems the copyright for much of the stuff in GNOME is
> > just assigned to the person who writes it, which will possibly make it
> > more difficult to pursue legal issues. I believe though that the
> > situation is possible improving since copyright is now being assigned
> > to either Helix Code, Eazel, or Red Hat.
> 
> Well, I think that people normally assign all their copyrights to the
> company they work for.
> 
> However, we still have the big problem that what's written as copyright
> notice in some files in CVS is not always correct and does not always
> reflect the real copyright.
> 
> Most of the time this copyright notices are created by the original
> creator of a file and when people later add stuff (and thus have the
> copyright to their additions), they forget to add this to the copyright
> notices at the top.
> 
> Even worse, sometimes people also write copyright notices without actually
> having the copyright so they aren't really allowed to do so (and thus
> the copyright notice being void).

Well - when I hack on something that has the copyright to someone else (like
Eazel Inc.) I 'assume' that by not adding myself I am relinquishing my
'copyright' claims. Is this legal? or do papers need to be signed (like the
FSF do) ?

> > I agree though that this probably not an issue for the gnome
> > foundation (since it has other priorities at the moment).
> 
> So I think it is an issue for the GF - it's even a very big issue.
> 
> If we as the GNOME Project want to be able to defend the copyright of
> our code we need to make sure that we own and keep all our copyrights.
> 
> Of cause, at the moment we have more important issues to discuss, but
> when the GF is created and the first board started its work, we should
> talk about this.

Yeah - I put the number one priority right now is getting the GNOME Foundation
formed, and define exactly what it does. After that, it can be discussed in a
possible meeting of the 'directors'.

Regards,
Ali Abdin