jim@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman) (07/30/89)
damon@upba.UUCP writes:
2. Given that an "unusual" copyright really isn't valid until
it's been tested in court, has the FSF ever sued anyone for
violation of their restrictions?
When we're talking about copyleft, I assume that we are discussing the
"GNU {CC,EMACS,...} GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE." Although the code is
copyrighted and the copyright notice refers to the License, I believe
it is the license and not the copyright which is the heart of the
matter. In general, "shrink-wrap" licenses in which no formal
documents are signed have not been extensively tested in the courts.
I hope that the FSF never sues anyone, or vice versa.
3. Is it true that any of their code has been developed with
government sponsered monies? You don't need to pay salaries
to satisfy this requirement, just use a machine at a
university purchased with goverenment money.
I don't think this latter is necessarily true. We had some problems
with an individual who had not signed a release form. All students
engaged in research at Stanford are supposed to sign the form, which
among other things relinquishes copyrights when they would conflict
with the obligations of a research contract. But Stanford goofed.
The release had not been signed. The sponsor wanted the software, and
the former student claimed copyright and refused to release it.
Although the work was done on equipment purchased or loaned as parts
of government contracts, he personally was not supported with tuition
or stipend by any contract funds. The lawyers said the ownership was
sufficiently unclear that we had to go back and waste our time
developing some equivalent software to give the sponsor.
I believe that even if the research contract that purchases equipment
requires release of all software developed with it, it is still up to
the signers of the contract, i.e. the University and the PI, to
deliver. If a student or researcher who is not a party to the
contract and has not relinquished his rights by signing a release form
develops something and copyrights (or copylefts) it, the government
would have no recourse against the author, only against the University
and the PI.
But personally, I doubt that most contracts cover ALL software
developed using the equipment. Most likely it only covers software
developed as part of the research contract or project.
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH
CONTRACTS ARE?
Let's move this off comp.lang.c++ and over to gnu.misc.discuss,
which seems somewhat more appropriate.
For once, I wish there were some lawyers around. There's a lot of
confusion and ignorance on these issues. Anyone for a comp.iprop or
comp.law newsgroup for intellectual property and licensing issues?
DISCLAIMER: Almost certainly, some or all of the above is wrong. I
sure ain't no lawyer.
Jim Helman
Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309
(jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940