-Legal Issues about Contributing Code to GNU last updated 1 Jul 2007
+Legal Issues about Contributing Code to GNU last updated 8 Feb 2009
-Project GNU has to be careful to obey copyright laws, even though we
-don't recognize them as a moral authority, because we and our users
-are in the public eye.
+Project GNU has to be careful to obey copyright laws, even though
+these laws are wrong when they stop people from sharing generally
+useful published information such as software, because we are in the
+public eye. We also use copyright to defend users' freedom, by means
+of copyleft (though this does not excuse copyright law for helping
+to make software proprietary).
-This means that if you want to contribute software, you have to do
-something to give us legal permission to use it. There are four ways
-this can be done:
+This means that if you want to contribute software to GNU, you have to
+do something to give us legal permission to use it. There are three
+ways this can be done:
* Assign the copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
-This is what we prefer because it allows us to use the copyright law
-to prevent others from hoarding modified versions of the program.
-
-* Keep the copyright yourself and give us a suitable nonexclusive
-license. It will then be up to you to prevent any unauthorized
-hoarding of modified versions; we will be unable to act. (This
-alternative is impractical for us if the use for your work is to be
-merged into a preexisting GNU program.)
+This allows the FSF to act to stop violations of the GPL.
* Keep the copyright and release the program yourself under the GNU
-GPL. (This alternative too is impractical for contributions to a
-preexisting GNU program.)
+GPL. (This alternative too impractical for contributions to a
+preexisting FSF-copyrighted GNU program.)
* Put the code in the public domain. Then there is nothing to stop
-restriction of modified versions, but we can still use the program in
-GNU.
+hoarding of modified versions, but we can still use the program in GNU.
-Most of these alternatives require a signed piece of paper to make
-them happen.
+Most of these alternatives require a signed piece of paper to make it
+happen.
* Assigning copyright.
distribute the program as a proprietary product. We are willing to
keep your name on the program as the author for as long as the program
remains recognizably distinct. ("Owner" is in quotes to show that we
-don't in general believe in this kind of ownership. We think it is
-legitimate to use this power to defend others' freedom, given that the
-power exists, but that doesn't justify using this power to deny
-others the freedom they should have.)
+don't really believe in this kind of ownership.)
The assignment contract commits the foundation to setting distribution
terms that permit free redistribution.
-We may not want to do the work of starting to distribute a program
-right away. But you can distribute it right away if you want: just
-please first attach our standard copyleft notice to the files. (Ask
-for our advice on how to do this.)
+Often we don't want to do the work of starting to distribute a program
+right away. There are many things which we will need in order to have
+a complete system but which aren't really useful until the rest of the
+system is done. But signing the assignment does not stop you from
+distributing the program yourself--as long as you do so under the GNU
+terms. You don't have to wait for us to start distributing. You can
+start distributing as soon as you attach our standard copyleft to the
+files. (Ask for our advice on how to do this.)
The assignment contract we normally use has a clause that permits you
to use your code in proprietary programs, on 30 days' notice. (The 30
days' notice is there because, through a legal technicality, it would
-improve our position in a suit against anyone making a proprietary
-version.) Although we believe that proprietary software is wrong, we
-include this clause because it would be ungrateful to ask you to limit
-yourself, given that you're giving us a gift in the first place.
+improve our position in a suit against a hoarder.) Although we
+believe that proprietary software is wrong, we include this clause
+because it would serve no purpose to ask you to promise not to do it.
+You're giving us a gift in the first place.
You don't need to invoke this clause in order to distribute copies as
free software under the GNU GPL, since everyone is allowed to do that.
-* Keeping the copyright.
-
-Keeping the copyright and giving the Free Software Foundation a
-nonexclusive license also requires signing a contract. The license we
-need permits us to add our usual distribution terms; it recognizes
-possession of a copy with our distribution terms accurately stated as
-licensing anyone to redistribute on those terms. However, if someone
-violates these terms--for example, if he uses the code in a
-proprietary product in violation of the GPL--we cannot enforce the
-license against him. You would have to do that, and if you don't, he
-would get away with the violation.
-
* Releasing it yourself.
-You can release a program yourself under a copyleft license such as
-the GNU GPL. (In order to accept the program as GNU software, we
-would have to be happy with your choice of license.) This does not
+You can release a program yourself under copyleft distribution terms
+such as the GNU GPL. (In order to accept the program as GNU software,
+we would have to be happy with your choice of terms.) This does not
require a contract between you and the FSF, but we would appreciate
having a signed piece of paper to confirm your decision.
-As in the previous option, only you will be able to enforce the license
-against violators. The FSF will be unable to act.
+If someone violates your terms--for example, if someone gets a copy
+from us, and uses it as a basis for a proprietary product in violation
+of the terms--we cannot sue him. You would have to sue, or he gets
+away with it.
* Public domain.
his contribution is just a fraction of the whole work, it is satisfactory
if he disclaims his own rights, even if you are assigning yours. (If just
the minor contributors' work goes in the public domain, that doesn't leave
-much of a loophole for proprietary software.)
+much of a loophole for hoarders.)
If you incorporated packages which you found floating around as "public
domain", we might still want to track down their authors, to get
disclaimers to reassure us that they really are in the public domain. So
-please keep track of what these packages are and who wrote them.
+keep track of what these packages are and who wrote them.
* A reminder:
-In working on a free software package, DO NOT study and follow any
-non-free source code that might have any bearing on the project.
-Don't refer to non-free source code at all, unless you are forced to
-for non-GNU reasons.
-
-Especially, if you are working on a replacement for a particular
-non-free program, DO NOT refer to the source for that program
-(supposing you have it).
-
-It is not considered a serious problem if you have read non-free
-source code in the past for other purposes, provided you don't copy
-anything in particular from it. But referring to it while you do the
-work could cause legal problems later for the users of your work.
+In working on a project for GNU, DO NOT study and follow any Unix
+sources or other non-free software that might have any bearing on the
+project. Don't refer to them at all, unless you are forced to for
+non-GNU reasons.
+It is not considered a serious problem if you have read Unix sources
+or other non-free source code in the past for other purposes, provided
+you don't copy anything in particular from them. However, referring
+to them while you do the work could cause us legal problems later.
projects / gnulib.git / blobdiff