summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html175
1 files changed, 175 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e2e3ef8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>When a Company Asks For Your Copyright
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<link rel="canonical"
+ href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/assigning-copyright" />
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/assigning-copyright.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>When a Company Asks For Your Copyright</h2>
+
+<p>Companies that develop free software and release it under the GNU GPL
+sometimes distribute some copies of the code in other ways. If they
+distribute the exact same code under a different license to certain
+users that pay for this, typically permitting including the code in
+proprietary programs, we call it &ldquo;selling exceptions&rdquo;. If they
+distribute some version of the code solely in a proprietary manner, we
+call that releasing a purely proprietary version of the program.</p>
+
+<p><a href="/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html</a> explains why
+selling exceptions is acceptable, though only barely. By contrast,
+releasing a purely proprietary version is outright wrong, like
+any other proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>Companies normally do these things using code they
+developed. Since they hold the copyright on that code, they can
+legally distribute it in any manner, even in multiple manners in
+parallel. But what happens when you publish a modified version of
+that free program, and the company wants to include your changes in
+its version?</p>
+
+<p>Since you got the program under the GPL, when you distribute a
+modified version you have to license it under the GPL. If the company
+receives a copy, it will be able to use those changes under the GPL;
+it won't be allowed to include your changes in that program and sell
+exceptions for it. It also won't be able to release purely
+proprietary versions containing your code. If this is the outcome you
+want, you get it by default. However, if the company intends to sell
+exceptions, it will probably decide not to use your changes.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose, though, that you're not opposed to selling exceptions and
+you're willing to let the company do so while including your changes
+in the program. You can agree to this, but you need to be careful
+about what you sign, or you may be surprised by the results.</p>
+
+<p>The company will probably invite you to assign or license your
+copyright to the company, by signing a copyright assignment contract
+or a contributor license agreement. That in itself is not inherently bad; for
+instance, many GNU software developers have assigned copyrights
+to the FSF. However, the FSF never sells exceptions, and its
+assignment contracts include a commitment to distribute the
+contributor's code only with source and only permitting
+redistribution.</p>
+
+<p>The company's proposed contract may not include such a commitment. It
+might instead let the company use your changes any way it likes. If
+you sign that, the company could do various things with your code. It
+could keep selling exceptions for a program including your code. It
+could release purely proprietary modified or extended versions
+including your code. It could even include your code <em>only</em> in
+proprietary versions. Your contribution of code could turn out to be,
+in effect, a donation to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>It is up to you which of these activities to permit, but here are the
+FSF's recommendations. If you plan to make major contributions to the
+project, insist that the contribution agreement require that software
+versions including your contributions be available to the public under
+a free software license. This will allow the developer to sell
+exceptions, but prevent it from using your contributions in software
+that is only available under a proprietary license.</p>
+
+<p>If your contributions are smaller, you could accept a weaker
+condition, that the company make your contributions available in a
+free software release as well as possibly in nonfree programs.
+This would allow the company to use your contributions in
+modified software that's only available under a proprietary license.
+Releasing proprietary software is never a good thing, but if your
+changes are smaller, it might be more important to improve the free
+version than resist the nonfree versions.</p>
+
+<p>You can control these outcomes by insisting on the proper conditions
+in the contract. To allow selling exceptions for the program that
+contains your code, but refuse to let the company release purely
+proprietary versions containing your code, you can insist on a
+condition more or less like this:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+ <p>Any program based on (as defined in GNU General Public License
+ version 3) Hacker's code that FOO distributes shall be made
+ available by FOO under a) the &ldquo;GNU General Public License (GPL),
+ version 2 or later&rdquo;, or b) the licensing in (a), above, but with &ldquo;2&rdquo;
+ replaced by any higher existing GPL version number. Provided FOO
+ makes the program available as source code gratis to the public in
+ this way, it may also distribute the identical program to some of
+ its users under terms permitting them to link the program's code
+ with nonfree code and release the combination in binary form under a
+ license of their own choosing.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Or, if what you object to is that some variant <em>of your code</em>
+might be released solely in a proprietary version, you can insist on a
+condition more or less like this:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+ <p>Any program based on (as defined in GNU General Public License
+ version 3) Hacker's code that FOO distributes shall be made
+ available by FOO under a) the &ldquo;GNU General Public License (GPL),
+ version 2 or later&rdquo;, or b) the licensing in (a), above, but with &ldquo;2&rdquo;
+ replaced by any higher existing GPL version number. Provided FOO
+ makes the program available as source code gratis to the public in
+ this way, it may also distribute the same version of Hacker's code
+ in other programs released under other licenses of its own choosing.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>If the program is released under the GNU Affero GPL, then add &ldquo;Affero&rdquo;
+before &ldquo;General&rdquo;, change &ldquo;GPL&rdquo; to &ldquo;AGPL&rdquo;, change &ldquo;2 or&rdquo; to &ldquo;3 or&rdquo;, and
+it could make sense to replace &ldquo;that FOO distributes&rdquo; with &ldquo;that FOO
+distributes, or deploys on a server accessible to users other than
+FOO&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF has had these texts reviewed by a lawyer, but you should get
+your own legal advice before using them.</p>
+
+<p>When a company says which of these conditions it will accept, that
+will show you how far it plans to depart from the principles of free
+software. Then you can respond to ensure your work will contribute to
+the free software community and not be diverted into proprietary
+software.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/07/13 21:47:00 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>