September 23, 2002

Copyright and licenses

Open Source

There was a lively discussion on cocoondev@outerthought.org few days ago about copyright and licenses. I post this reply to Nicola Ken Barozzi, as I think is of a greater interest.

When we are talking about software, no matter is free software/open source or proprietary, there are two aspects of it we are interested in. The first one is the copyright holder, and the second one is the license.

The copyright holder is the person or organization who holds the rights for the code. The copyright holder decides what is the license the code should have. It can even release the code under two or more licenses. For example he/she can release the code under an open source license, and at the same time release it under a commercial, proprietary and more restrictive one. There are many reasons one can do this, I don't want to get into this right now.

The fact that you own the copyright allows you to release the code under any license you want. That's why in the past people where reluctant to give away they copy rights to organizations such as FSF. One example is Linus with with his baby, Linux. He chose to keep the copyright for himself, and let others contribute code to Linux without having to assign their copy rights to him. Linux is effectively owned by hundreds of people or organizations. I think this works marvelously: nobody can decide to make their piece of code proprietary and use in a closed project: if they do it, they have to use that code outside the context of Linux, which in many cases is useless. GPL prevents them from incorporating other people's code in their closed proprietary project, unless they obtain the approval of the other copyright holders to do this, or the whole product is released under GPL. GPL allows you to do this, and such it has a great advantage over any other free software/open source license.

If you're the copyright holder, you can still release your code under a proprietary license, even if it's also released under GPL. This is the case with SGI's XFS filesystem, which is a proprietary piece of code still in use in SGI's Irix operating system. The fact that SGI is the copyright holder allows them to do this. What they cannot do is take other people's contributions to XFS, released by them only under GPL, and incorporate them in their proprietary code (You can still do it if the copyright holder releases that code under your own proprietary license). This is very tricky, so the motivation for you as a copyright holder to open source the code in the first place must be clearly made. This is usually done with mature projects, which can only marginally benefit from other people's contributions. What you get instead from the community is more exposure, in terms of user testing and, of course, a lot of marketing visibility.

To alleviate the issue of not being able to incorporate other people's changes in you code, various organizations came up with their own licenses. One of the most well known such license is Mozilla Public License. This license explicitly states the code must remains open source, no matter what changes another organizations make to it. This has the great advantage the code under such a license can be incorporated in any proprietary projects by anybody in the world, and that any changes made to it are published under MPL, thus are open source as well. Unlike GPL, MPL does not restrict in any way the license of final product you're incorporating the code into. This is a great advantage for enterprises, since they are not restricted in any way.

LGPL is very similar to MPL, but it enforces you as a product vendor not only to include the libraries or jar files of the LGPLed product, but also to include your own libraries used to generate the final product. The reason for this is to preserve the rights of the LPGLed code, which can be modified and re-linked against the proprietary libraries to obtain the final executable.

The last license I'm discussing about here is the Apache Public License, a variation of the well known BSD license. Licenses in this category allow anybody to take the code released under such a license, modify it and incorporate it into their proprietary project, without any restriction. The license does not prevent you from doing this. This type of licenses are very beneficial to companies like Microsoft, since they can benefit from the work of thousands of developers without contributing anything back.

Being a copyright holder allows you to release the code you hold the rights for under any combination of licenses. Giving away this copy right, you effectively loose the ability to incorporate it into your or somebody else's proprietary project , under a more restrictive license. FSF however gives you back such a right, once you assign the copyright to them, while ASF does not.

Posted by ovidiu at September 23, 2002 11:25 AM |
 
Copyright © 2002-2016 Ovidiu Predescu.