Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Balancing Third Party "Ownership" Against The GPL? 129

Posted by Cliff from the free-software-that-gets-the-rug-pulled-out-from-under-it dept.
hooptie asks: "For the past three years, I've been employed by a contract agency to develop medical outcomes measurement software for a military medical center. Since neither of my immediate corporate nor military superiors really understand the GPL, they've all agreed to license the software under it; and from day-one, everything developed has been released under the GPL, with my name as the holder of the copyright. Now, this 'home grown' system is actually being looked at by the MEDCOM commanders to be deployed Army wide; and, there are some people in the chain of command, under the auspices that the Department of Defense owns the software and that THEY didn't agree to the licensing, don't want to adhere to it because they want to incorporate it's functionality into a closed, propietary system that they've been developing. If I've followed the appropriate steps for applying the GPL to the software, do I have any recourse if they try to close the source? Is this situation parallel to the ASPL or am I missing something?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Balancing Third Party "Ownership" Against The GPL? More

Balancing Third Party "Ownership" Against The GPL?

Comments Filter:

  • Why ask /. and not FSF? (Score:5)

    by Dionysus ( 12737 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:20PM (#405535) Homepage
    Why don't you ask the FSF since they wrote the license, about advice? WHy ask /. where the answer might or might not mean anything, and the value of the answer is questionable at best.
  • Doesn't this seem a little like unringing a bell once it has been rung.

  • Seems like a simple case to me:

    Since you did it during your employers time, do you have anything in writing, or in your contract that copyright is to fall to you? (so that you can legally place it under the GPL?), or other documentation that proves that somebody with signing authority agreed to put it under the GPL?

    ---
    As a last resort and compromise, you could offer to write out a separate commercial license to allow inclusion in the proprietary library, still saving the code for usage under GPL.
  • What authority does the FSF have to give you any answers here? None at all.
  • This seems like they want to unring a bell that has been rung.

  • If you own the copyright, you can release it under as many licenses as you want. However, if you have used source from other people, you probably want to make sure that either they agree to release copyright claim, or agree to the relicensing.

  • IANAL, but... (Score:4)

    by Bwuce Pewwens ( 261192 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:23PM (#405542)
    It seems to me that:

    1. Although you are named the copyright holder, you developed it while working for your employer, so they have ultimate rights to it.

    2. The GPL doesn't prevent the copyright holder from changing the license on later versions of the software, only against anyone else taking the source and releasing it under anything besides the GPL. Therefore, as long as they don't try to put the cat back in the bag and "un-GPL" all the old versions (how they would, I don't know), all the versions from now on could be released under any license they feel like.

  • Since neither of my immediate corporate nor military superiors really understand the GPL, they've all agreed to license the software under it; and from day-one, everything developed has been released under the GPL, with my name as the holder of the copyright.

    This will get interesting, if those superiors were actually entitled to give away those rights.

    Then it's leaving or fighting the GPL. Cool.

  • In many (if not most) US government/DOD contracts, the end product and the source is owned by the U.S. Gov't. Unless, your contract states otherwise, you probably can not enforce the copyright or the GPL on them.

  • doesn't matter... (Score:3)

    by J.J. ( 27067 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:27PM (#405545)
    The important issue here is the terms of the contract. Unless it was explicitly stated in the terms of that contract that the code will remain open, (which, I assure you, it doesn't) then the DoD can do whatever they wish.

    It doesn't matter what kind of liscense the code has already been released under. It really doesn't matter what you want. The DoD owns the code, because they paid you to develop it. If they want to incorporate it into a closed system, then they have the power to do so. If you raise a ruckus and attempt to stand in the way of that, you'll find yourself replaced, quickly.

    J.J.
  • If your superiors either in the contract agency or the military agreed to let you use the GPL, without them understanding what that meant, chances are their permission is arguably invalid.

    If you have a contract with the contract agency, or they have one with the military, chances are that there are terms in those contracts regarding intellectual property and work-for-hire that supercede your desire to license the code you worked on under the GPL.

    You may not have any say in distribution of the code.

  • Mandatory Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one--anything I tell you should not be construed as advice but the ramblings of a mad man.

    Full GPL License [gnu.org] There are a few ways that GPL'ed code can remain open but the greater project can be closed... think about DLL's or helper executables to handle the work that is required here. Helper executables would slow down the processing a bit, but linked DLL's should still work. IF it was "mandatory" to fix this "mistake" it might be plausible to place the GPLed code in a linked DLL and use that to work in the "gpl'ed" code... with the greater Executable being closed source.

    Of course there is the option to redo all the work, but I doubt that this is even possible... but if the higher ups do not think a staticly linked DLL containing the open source code is possible (EG they dont want the open source for even that code any longer) -- well... redo all the work, or send a coded message involving the acronym "RTFGPL" (Read the 'friggin' GPL) to your higher ups.
  • I've done several web sites for government agencys - all pretty much scripted, and the code that i use (95% of which is literally mine) is all GPL. (I'd place a link to it here if it were ready to go public).

    Anyway - there was a little hesitation from them with the license, but once i explained the difference between a copyright on the 'content', vs a copyright on 'the code that speaks the content', they warmed up to it.

    This argument probably wont solve your problem, but it will perhaps help.
    -voudras
  • If you really own the copyright, then all base belong to you.

    The question is do you have anything that states who the owner of the code you wrote is? The real owner will depend greatly on your terms of employment. In most cases it will be your employer, BUT if you have a document saying otherwise, well...

    If it was released under GPL with the permission of the owner, then that which was released will remain released, the copyright owner has no obligation to release future versions under any given license unless they have made a contractual obligation otherwise.


    MOVE 'ZIG'.
  • If the government, an organization by itself, is distributing the software internally, to itself, doesn't that NOT violate the GPL when closed source?

    If it was released into the public wouldn't it THEN be required to be "open source"?

    ---

  • Strike a compromise (Score:3)

    by jorbettis ( 113413 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:31PM (#405551) Homepage

    Since owners of GPL'd sofware can release the same software under multiple licenses (as did Larry Wall with Perl), ask to keep ownership, but re-license it to the DoD under a BSD'ish license (or whatever else they want).

    That way, it stays GPL for everyone else, but they get to incorporate it into their propietory program and everyone's happy.

  • You were paid to develop the software - unless you have it IN WRITING that you have any rights to the software, you've effectively stolen their property.

    It also does not help your case to say that they did not understand the GPL - this makes it look like you used subterfuge to claim rights to something you don't own and profited (reputationally, emotionally, etc.) from.

    I would think that there's even the possibility for action against you. Either way, I'd pay the money to get a lawyers opinion.

  • If your superiors either in the contract agency or the military agreed to let you use the GPL, without them understanding what that meant, chances are their permission is arguably invalid.

    Uhm? Who actually understands the GPL in its full glory, it actually having been never fought in court.

    Under that reasoning, a LOT of people could retract their GPL licensing.. :-)

  • May Not be a big deal (Score:3)

    by djKing ( 1970 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:32PM (#405554) Homepage Journal
    If the DOD wants to keep the source closed, the can still comply with the GPL. All they have to do is make the source available to the people who use the system, namely other Military people. That may be enough to make them happy.

    Of course I doubt you'd be happy as the whole point of leting the code out under the GPL was to help more than just the Military right?

    BTW I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot by
    A) not getting things in writing
    B) admiting in public that they did not understand the GPL. If they did not understand it, it makes it hard to say they argreeded. (IANAL)

    -Peace
    Dave
  • As mentioned, your employer has authority over what is done with their intellectual property - which includes anything you come up with while on company time
    If you've released this software - sent it out, published it, whatever, then you could be held liable for "damages" incurred by you releasing company IP.
    The best thing you could do for yourself at this point is say "ok" and "release" the software under a new license. You ARE allowed to do this, as being the so-called copyright holder.
    Let me say this one more time: You do not own the copyright on the source, your employer does.
    If you want to hold the copyright on some software, write it on your own time.
    ---
  • When your company develops something under a contract, as an employee of the employer you are bound by that contract, as well as any government regulations regarding contracts. Depending upon the circumstances and the way the contract was written, the company may or may not retain copyright to the work. One common variable is whether the work was done under set-asides for small business, in which case the government frequently allows the copyright to remain with the company, and the government gets an unrestricted license to use the sofware which was developed. If the company has the rights to the copyright, then it can GPL the product at will.

    You will have to have the company counsel read both the contract and the federal acquisition regulations (FARs) to determine how to proceed. We were in such a battle two years ago, and in our case it turned out that the copyright was ours to do with whatever we chose, as long as the government had the right to use what we developed.

    Note also that FSF has a major section in their explanation of GPL dealing with the dangers of trying to GPL something to which you do not have the rights. There is danger here if you don't get it right.

  • What a mess. (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:35PM (#405557)
    First, I have to say that it seems rather unethical to have done this. Your employer didn't understand the GPL but you snuck it by anyway? Explaining it would have been the right thing to do, rather than giving free software a bad rap by having them discover the terms after the fact. If you were employed by them, you may even have had a legal obligation to make a good-faith effort before taking the code for yourself.

    I also question if you legally own it. They paid for your emplyment, and I'd be really surprised if they let you hold the copyright. But if you do, there's no issue. Take your code and do what you want with it, but be prepared to go to court and be blacklisted from future employment with them.

    Finally, nothing prevents the true copyright holder (whoever that is) from releasing the code under another license. Nothing says you can't can't push GPL licensed code out the public door, while also putting the code into a closed system. Of course, you can't take other's GPL'd code (including their additions to your code) and put it in the closed system.

    Get a lawyer if you're really serious about this. You're not going to sort this out on /.
  • The suggestion did not involve asking the FSF "here" and the authority is simply that of having experiance with the GPL longer than anyone else.

    TWW

  • Enforce the GPL? If they own the rights thay can change the license to anything they want even if it was legally gpl'ed in the first place.
  • DISCLAIMER: I'm more familiar with Canadian copyright law, but I have a feeling this generalization applies there too.

    It all depends on who actually owns the copyright. If you are the owner of the copyright, then you're free to release it under the GPL and any other licenses you want. To satisfy the client, you could GPL it and license it to them under a separate license that lets them do whatever they want. If they own the copyright (i.e., if it's considered a "work for hire"), then it's up to them how they want to license it. Check your contract for terms and conditions, and talk to a real lawyer.

    A bit of GPL trivia: (IANRMS) I believe the GPL allows you to incorporate GPLed code into your closed-source project, provided you do not sell or distribute that project. If it's just for in-house use, I think you're in the clear.
  • And if it is in the public domain, the US government also has the rights to use it as such and incorporate it into their proprietary system.

  • Who owns the code? (Score:4)

    by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:42PM (#405562)
    If your companies contract specified that your company would retain ownership of the code, then you can release it under any license you like, as long as you let them use it.

    If the contract says the military owns exclusive rights to the code, and the people there who agreed to use the GPL were authorized to do so, then it is TS for them: they got their contract cheaper than if someone wrote the code from scratch, but they have to pay for it in terms of licensing.

    If nobody authorized to make that kind of decision was consulted, then you are at fault, and the govt. is probably obligated to abide by the GPL (since the existing code you used was only licensed under it), but you are screwed.

    If you were the exclusive copyright owner, you could potentially release the software publically under the GPL while giving the military a non-exclusive license to use the software in their system.

    Really, your initial proposal should have stated that you planned to use existing software licensed under the GPL, and the final product would have to be distributed in compliance with that license, along with including a copy of it with your proposal.
  • What prevents you from releasing your code under multiple licenses? The military could use the code under a BSD license (or just plain own it), and you would also license the code under the GPL. The government would then just be restricted by not being able to incorporate the modifications by other people to your GPL'd code without it being viral to their own code.
    Companies often have different licenses for their binaries and source code. A typical desktop application's license will forbid you from even trying to decompile it, but large business software may have it's source code licensed for a huge fee because their client needs extra functionality and has their own developers to implement this.
  • If you have permission to GPL your code, but you want to be sure that your employer keeps it strictly GPL, then the best approach is to be sure to incorporate someone else's GPL code into the project. That way, even though your employer owns the copyright on what you did, they don't own the copyright on the entire project, so they can't close-source it.

  • Additional thoughts (Score:4)

    by Eric Green ( 627 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:47PM (#405565) Homepage
    I would recommend that, if you have been given permission to release something as Open Source, you get it in writing. Then I would suggest releasing early and often, so that if the copyright holder (the entity that commissioned the "work for hire") changes his mind, it's too late, it's already being dessimated across the 'Net. It appears that this guy made two mistakes: a) he did not get the GPL agreement in writing, and b) he did not release the software early and often under the GPL in order to "get the genie out of the bottle" (so to speak).

    Nevertheless, the copyright holder (the entity that commissioned the "work for hire") can change the licensing at any time and use the software in any way he wishes. If he wants to use the software in a proprietary application with a proprietary license, that is his right, regardless of any other license that the software has been released under. If the software has not yet been released and the copyright holder wishes to change the license prior to release, that is his right. So it is pretty clear that this dude is out of luck -- he didn't properly practice CYA (rule #1 of CYA: Unless it's in writing, it ain't so. Rule #2: If they want to come after you, make sure it'll be as publically embarrassing for them as possible).

    -E

  • If everything the US govt produces is non-copywriteable, then how can they have a proprietary system?
    ---
  • I'm not sure if this holds true in the U.S. but in Canada, unless your contract says differently, you (as a contractor, not as an employee) own all the source code you produce.

    --

  • Re:Why ask /. and not FSF? (Score:3)

    by bfields ( 66644 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:49PM (#405568) Homepage
    Why don't you ask the FSF since they wrote the license...?

    The license is irrelevant here; the question is what sort of agreement the employee in this case had with his/her employer. If they had a written agreement saying, for example, that the employee could keep copyright to the code if it was made available to the employer under the GPL, then that's OK. If not, then by default copyright law assigns ownership to the employer (the code in this case is called "work for hire").

    The admission that immediate supervisors didn't really understand the GPL, and the fact that higher supervisors didn't seem aware of the situation, suggests to me that there was no formal agreement, in which case I think s/he's probably screwed.... If the code clearly stated the employee's copyright claim since day 1 and supervisors have seen it and not objected, maybe that would be sufficient evidence of a contract. I don't know (and IANAL). But it would really have been smart to get a formal written agreement at the start.

    In any case, this situation has *nothing* to do with the terms of the GPL in particular, and would be exactly the same if the APSL or any other license had been involved.

    --Bruce Fields

  • Here's how this really works... (Score:3)

    by twivel ( 89696 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @02:49PM (#405569)
    There is nothing wrong with them taking it and using it in a closed-source situation, since they did indeed fund it's development. I suggest you create a sourceforge project for it - so free developement can continue even after they start using it commercially. What this does is creates a 'fork' between their commercial and the GPL version.

    Now, the above may not work if the development has been assisted by outside parties. See the thing is, if someone else has contributed to a GPL project, they own the rights to their contributions. So if the Gov't wants to take it from GPL to a proprietary license, they will have to remove any other contributions. Or else they will need to get the other contributors to sign over their rights to the code they wrote.


    --
    Twivel

  • what the hell ever gave you the idea that you were the copyright holder?
  • The OpenSource community has adapted in various ways to address the issue of coexistance. To use a rather crude analogy, BSD is bisexual whereas kits (see <A HREF="http://www.kitware.com">VTK</A> where patented stuff can be compiled out or purcahsed separate) is like having a mistress (or 5). Embedded manufacturers are homosexual in that they enjoy all the priviledges of the CCC toolchain but reserve the right to go the otherway at the last instance. Is there a happy marriage which represents a middle ground? RMS would clearly like the code to be virgin but unfortunately his philosophy of choice does not jib well with a command and control mentality (which if you understand military hierachies is inevitable). While there is some comfort that in the long-term the market/community will evolve solutions, your situation needs to be resolved in the short term. Some suggestions for negotiations:

    - suggest to the military-industry perplex (contraction of person and complex) that the GPL form the demo/training version which will reduce the cost of controlling sensitive/unstable components.

    - reduce to core + open when only the core is restricted. This reduces the support costs of the ancilliary parts which in a larger OpenSource world there are alternatie suppliers of programmers/expertise.

    - emphasise the reduced maintainence costs (OK rather difficult in a government bureacracy which has little concept of fiscal discipline) as you will benefit from the reduction of bit-rot and early obsolescence.

    - encourage the development of policies which progressively open up closed source due to the risk of a key personnel leaving. The military understand the value of redundacy (at least if they expect combat casualties) and you want to reduce the risk that a crazed terrorist might decide to nuke the dev-team (OK outlandish but this is the paranoia state) and cripple the critical nexus. OpenSource (GPL) distributes the expertise so the risk of system catastrophe is much less.

    - try to understand the client's mindset and address their concerns. GPL/OpenSource is not a universal antidote to world poverty, there are situations where it may not be relevant. If the worry is support/responsibility, suggest mechanisms such as a trouble-ticket. Establish the criteria for it not being GPL (and avoid the generic bullshit about national interests and spy vs spy). Most code is for mundane purposes like logistics and task-automation. Suggesting that tax-payer subsidies of $xxx * 500% per line-of-code will not go down well with politicans.

    - read stuff from HOW2-advocacy-Linux to understand how a consultant should think. Your primary concern should be to best meet the needs of the mission. For techniques on critical thinking, read up suff on 6 Thinking Hats to get logical rationals (pos,neg) and reduced bias as to the selection of the licensing/distribution/usage. And for gods sake document it so the next perplex doesn't come along and changes the rules of the game (yet again).

    - understand the long-term impact of licensing by using market examples ... the Sun Community License as a defensive chastity belt (once you get in you can't check out), university (MIT/CalRegent) condom is disclaim any warrenties, the tactical role of Apple's dildo to try and screw the media control plans of the opposition, However I would suggest using more ... ummmm ... reserved language.

    In short, rather than covering your butt, be prepared to stand up for what you believe is the best for your users in gaining access to software that doesn't suck. Sure you make get knocked about a bit in the early stages but at least you won't be screwed for life by being forced to use software that everyone hates.

    Good luck,
    LL

  • FOIA? (Score:3)

    by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @03:01PM (#405572)
    It sounds like the initial consent was invalid and the GPL is not binding on the code you released.

    However, I must admit that my eyebrows went up with the stated intention to incorporate this code into a proprietary system. I know that the government often pays for initial development and turns the results over to a company for deployment, but those companies are usually involved from the start.

    More generally, software (and all IP) developed with public money generally belongs to the public. It isn't always released, esp. if it involves national security, but it doesn't sound like that would apply in this case.

    Perhaps it's time to investigate a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) filling. Not because you could use the code obtained by it, but to establish that the code *is* the legal property of the US Government, not a company. A FOIA would also uncover if the software was developed by public funds and improperly given, exclusively, to a private concern. This should give you enough information to take it to your congressman - and local investigative reporters - for further action.

    (Finally, for the anal among us IANAL. Get over it - no sane person gets their legal advice from slashdot. Our function is to raise issues that can be pursued further with local counsel.)
  • According to my understanding of the GPL, you only need to distribute your code modifications if you distribute the binary. If the government agency is just using this software internally, then their GPL code (and GPL infected code) will only need to be available internally, also. Of course, the question is whether the U.S. government a single entity, or would they have to distribute the source code between branches or just between federal, state, and local government agencies?

    I'm basing this primarily on section 2b of the GPL [gnu.org].

  • IANAL - Incompetent Advice Necessarily A Liability

    Why do people ask advice on Ask Slashdot where a real lawyer is almost essential? If you're concerned about a licensing issue, especially with military brass, why would you even consider taking the opinions of anonymous amateur pundits on a for-profit advocacy weblog?

    Get some professional, personal, specific advice from someone who is accountable for the answers they provide.

    IANAL - If Advice Needed, Ask Lawyers

  • There are a number of issues at play here.

    First, it is severely unethical for you to pull the wool over your supervisor's eyes and make them agree to making the code GPL. You are no better than the consultant who convinces his boss to buy something that he doesn't need.

    Having said that, the situation has two ways it can play out:
    1) Your bosses could have not had the authority to deligate the IP rights to your code, which would therefore mean that they get the copyright and you get the shaft.
    2) Your bosses could have given you the IP rights to the code and therefore you can do whatever you want with it.

    Now, in case 2, there are two ways that it can pan out.

    First, writing code under the GPL does not necessarily imply that's the only terms it can be distributed under. You can cut a deal where the military can keep it proprietary and the rest of the world has the GPL to deal with. This is the nice thing to do, because it probably won't result in you pissing off your bosses.
    Second, you could be forced to sign your code over via various techniques. You could be summarily fired, blacklisted, or sued in various creative ways.

    I'd suggest you try to work things out the first way. Since they assigned the copyright to you, you are empowered to license it under any number of license agreements. And you will be giving a lot of open source people a bad name if you tie them up with the GPL.
  • It's copyright, not copywrite. And software developed either under contract (e.g. not by government employees) are under no such requirement. Only software developed by government employees are limited by that. That's one of the reasons no code for carnivore (or whatever the new name of the system is) will ever be publically accessable.
  • I don't know if this works the same in a military setting but, if you have more money to spend on lawyers than the other people who are trying to change the licensing on your software then you can most likely prove your right and win the software back in court. If not you might as well give in to the opposition. This is pretty much how it works everywhere in America, and I'm assuming you are in the US.
  • my company is intergrating linux into part of its product because it should increase our stock price by showing that we are hip and cool.
    I told them that maybe we should just get everyone big sunglasses or teach the employees how to do human jukebox, but they wanted linux.

    Anyway, they decided to hire some lawyers, cause like the guy says above, lawyers are cool. Being lawyers, they got really excited when we told them we used GPL SW to make modules. They sensed a business opportunity. We love paying lawyers lots of money cause it makes us feel secure, like a security blanket with fleas.

    Next time I will just tell them we used the Flame lawyer license, with requires lawyers to spontaneously combust after reading the license under penalty of spontaneous combustion for non-compliance. Match included with SW.

    That's all I have to say about this.
  • If nobody authorized to make that kind of decision was consulted, then you are at fault, and the govt. is probably obligated to abide by the GPL (since the existing code you used was only licensed under it)....

    The programmer didn't mention using anyone else's GPL'd code. If that were the case, then obviously both the DOD and the employee (at least if s/he expects to continue to be employed by the DOD) are screwed.

    But as far as we can tell, all the code involved was written by the employee; in which case, it all belongs to the DOD (absent a contract to the contrary), so the DOD can do whatever it wants with it, and the GPL is irrelevant since the employee never had the authority to use it in the first place.

    ---Bruce Fields

  • Maybe because the copyright was filled out in his name?
  • If your work is owned by the DOD as they claim, then it probably counts as government work.

    Check out:

    http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html

    it seems to imply that you may not be able to apply copyright in this case, and if so, then the GPL probably doesn't apply anyway because it's based on a license to waive copyright in certain cases.

    All looks very complex. It depends on who owns the software.

  • How about being nice... (Score:3)

    by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @03:40PM (#405582)
    You did work under contract, an appeared to do something not in their interest... i.e. maintain copyright and release under the GPL. Well, give them an unlimited license. I mean, by all rights they should own copyright, so give them what they need.

    Additionally, the legal issues here are silly. This is the military, they have lots of guns, therefore, they make the rules.

    Regardless, nobody here thinks that this was ethical of you. If you used GPL code (and can justify the GPL for that reason), then inform them of this and what that means. As they are unlikely to distribute, they won't care. If the code is being turned over to a company to make a program to distribute to the military, inform them of the situation. They can keep the system under the GPL by including a source code CD to the military and contract them into including a copy if they distribute it.

    Contrary to /. wisdom, the GPL does not require a company to put there software for download, in CVS, etc. They only need to make source available to a third party if they don't include it originally.

    I mean, the GPL doesn't limit companies doing a custom job... it only limits companies trying to do a "mass market" job... which makes sense, the Free world Stallman refers to was a world of custom code, and with custom code, there is no reason not to make source available (that way you don't need to be the only one that can make changes, you can ethically turn down the project). Generic mass-market applications (Office suites, GUI OSes, etc) have an incentive to keep proprietary, because you can charge per copy.

    While there are other "clients" that code for the DoD can be sold to, charges like treason come to mind. :)
  • Stallman, angered that the US military had seemingly violated, or at least bent, the clauses and the intent of the GPL, rode swiftly across the land in his Honda, calling on GNU religious adherents everywhere to his righteous flag of free beer, free speech and free penguins. The many suspender-and-beard wearing supporters held protests across the land objecting to the military's theft of GPL'ed intellectual property.

    And yet the military abused its power more and more, taking GPL'ed code and putting it in proprietary systems.

    And the people took up pitchforks and soldering irons and marched to the Pentagon behind Stallman's Honda.

    Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was in a meeting when he heard the chant, growing stronger with each passing moment. The voice of the people had reached into the corridors of power.

    Outside, thousands upon thousands now called to the military, "All your base are belong to us!!!" and lo, it was so.

    --

  • By not releasing the software.
  • Correction. If HE has already licensed it, and its under the GPL under his name. He does own the rights to it. End of story.

  • I think L. Peter Deutsch was the first to have dual-license -- GPL version of Ghostscript and then the Aladdin for-pay commercial version where you get to keep your proprietary changes. It's pretty much passed the scruitiny of time -- Ghostscript is distributed as GPL widely, and Ghostscript is the basis of a for-profit company (not called Aladdin anymore) that sells it. LPD even retired recently. (For those of you who don't know, Deutsch is a real pioneer in computer science, having invented fundamental ideas in garbage collection, programming languages, etc.)
  • Forget who owns the code, if whoever you distribute the binaries to doesn't demand the source, whether or not it's GPLed is irrelevant!

  • I don't know if anyone else noticed, but this is the military, not some publicaly owned company or such. GPL is fine and all, but if the military feels that it may endanger national security by having this system opensourced, then I honestly don't think there is much anyone can do about it.

    I don't think it would be hard to make a case either way. Security through obscurity is bad, but leaving a system open that could possibly be exploited to hurt servicemen (by changing people's alergic reaction charts, etc) would be bad in case of an actual war (which would probably involve a cyberfont this time too).

  • It doesn't matter what kind of liscense the code has already been released under. It really doesn't matter what you want.
    Actually, it does matter just a bit, because you are under contract. Contracts in themselves being complex beasties, the following may not apply, but many contracts have escape clauses, and if said licensing terms were not to the specificaion of the DoD, or if there was no mentioning of specific licensing, so long as the deliverables are usable as specified under the contract, the terms of the contract hold. (Of course, the O.J. effect can take hold and muddle the process.)
    The DoD owns the code, because they paid you to develop it.
    Again, not necesarily. It really depends on the terms of the contract.
    If they want to incorporate it into a closed system, then they have the power to do so. If you raise a ruckus and attempt to stand in the way of that, you'll find yourself replaced, quickly.
    You as a developer also always have the power to terminate the contract under one of the escape clauses that every contract should have. (If this one didn't, it's time to sue your contract lawyer for malpractice.) You simply fulfill the terms of the escape clause, be it paying back money or whatever, and the contract goes away. (Be prepared for litigation in this case though, as normally, people don't like that.)

    Of course, the sensible thing is to figure out why the DoD doesn't like the GPL, and then relicense the code to them under a non-GPL license for more money, or use that relicensing as a tool to get further jobs. From the description, it sounds like the code is a module, and it can just be called from other programs without any issues. You may need to lgpl (or bsd) the manual and some include files, but that's no biggie.

    Don Armstrong -".naidnE elttiL etah I"
  • Well, as previously mentioned, you employer usually has rights to contract-developed products. And because your employer is the military, notorious for ...um... "convenient" ... interpretations of contracts, etc., well, I'd say your chances are slim. But always worth a shot. The GAO is occasionally reasonable. Occasionally.
  • Ah, but you're assuming that had the legal right to license it in the first place.

    If he had something in writing from his employer stating that he had the right to license it any way he wanted then there would be no question for us to answer.

    My boss just told me I could license Windows 2000 under the GPL. Guess I'll do it.

  • Re:Clear case. (Score:5)

    by bwt ( 68845 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @04:16PM (#405592)
    It's not clear. Copyright law has a big "gotcha" when contractors are involved. Without more info, I don't think the answer is clear.

    The US Supreme Court gave a unanimous ruling interpreting "work for hire" in the case
    COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE v. REID, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) [findlaw.com]

    The case discusses how to tell an employee from an independent contractor, and what standard to apply in each case to identify a work for hire. For an indendent contractor, the work for hire condition exists only "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." It also is only allowed for an enumerated class of works that doesn't appear to include computer programs.

    In this case, Reid was a sculptor who made an oral agreement with CCNV to create a sculture for them. He did and they both tried to claim copyright on it. He was ruled an independent contractor and the contract did not create a work for hire because it was oral and because a sculpture isn't in the eligible class of works.

    For this poster, it depends on what kind of employee he is. If he is an independent contractor, then he likely owns the copyright even without the agreement. If he is an employee, then he only owns the copyright if the agreement was in a written contract.

    It sounds like things are even more complicated because he works for a contract agency. This presents a third possiblity. If he is an "employee" of the contracting firm, but there is no explicit written contract transfer of copyright from the contracting firm to the client as part of their contract, then the contracting firm would own the copyright.

    However, a copyright licence like the GPL can be created much more easily than a transfer of copyright ownership. If the company agreed at any time to licence their copyright under the GPL, then that's probably definitive. The copyright owner can relicence the works they own, but they cannot revoke a licence already given, unless the licence specifically says so (and the GPL doesn't).
  • "Unless it was explicitly stated in the terms of that contract that the code will remain open, (which, I assure you, it doesn't) then the DoD can do whatever they wish."

    No, no, no...

    The government is a contractee, just like anyone else, and they're governed by the same laws. If they didn't specify licensing in the contract, and the contractor is the rightful owner of the code, then the government is stuck. The owner gets to name the license.

    "The DoD owns the code, because they paid you to develop it."

    Again, no. The developer owns the code unless otherwise specified by the contract. Just because the DoD paid the contractor does not mean the DoD has property rights to the contractor's product.

  • If you think about this, you are in fact the bad guy here. You have knowingly tricked your employer into paying you for making something they can't use. Also, you unecessarily scare your managers away from GPL'd software. It is good that your software is released under the GPL. It is bad of you to enforce this on the company itself, who by any reasonable standard should be the legal copyright holders.

    The ethical thing for you to do is to immediately transfer copyright to your employer, apologize, and stay out of trouble. (Please don't make a bad name for the free software and open source communities!)

  • This sounds like Guido and Python. He never got the licensing straight with management at CNRI and when they finally took an interest, they wanted to change the license.

    The U.S. Government can not own a copyright. However, a contractor working for the government can own a copyright on work done for the government. The last Army (ARPA) contract I worked on, the contract let the researchers choose the copyright as long as they gave one copy to the Army, delivered to Fort Huachuka, so you may be in better shape than you think. You'd better look at the contract.

    There are a few courses you can take here:

    • Dual Licensing: let the Government do what it wants with its copy, and let the copy you have distributed so far continue under the GPL.
    • Pull Back the GPL Copies: legally a mess, so much of a mess that the government most likely will not want to do it once they realize what a mess it is.
    • Write Your Congressman: this is publicly funded unclassified research, we should have a copy available to the public. Organize a campaign for people to write their congress person about that.

    I have a conspiracy theory for you: Why is this happening so soon after Microsoft announced it wanted to lobby Government not to have public funding of GPL work?

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Re:FOIA? (Score:4)

    by Tim ( 686 ) <timr AT alumni DOT washington DOT edu> on Saturday February 24, 2001 @04:30PM (#405596) Homepage
    "More generally, software (and all IP) developed with public money generally belongs to the public."

    No, it doesn't. As a former contractor employee, I was frustrated many times in my attempts to get ahold of publicly-funded software. In fact, a very large percentage of publicly-funded software ends up being proprietary, since the government agrees to those conditions to get some special consideration.

    Don't confuse government use with public use--while the government can (and usually does) require unlimited government use of software developed with government funds, this right does NOT automatically translate to the public at large.

  • It's actually really common for contractors to reserve commercial rights for all software these days. It's common enough that it's routine: the government gets rights for government use, the contractor keeps rights for all other uses.

    //C

  • My point is, it's *stupid* to ask legal advice on a public forum because you don't know the quality of the advice you're getting.

    With the FSF, you know the quality of the advice, and they could have clarified any questions you might have on the license, especially what they mean by owner etc.

  • Likely course of action (Score:3)

    by psychosis ( 2579 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @04:32PM (#405599)
    Disclaimer: I manage several US Military contracts that deal with code development.
    As it seems like you are under contract (opposed to an actual General Schedule Govt Employee), I'll frame this comment accordingly. If not, or you'd like more info, please drop me a line at the above address.
    Anything you develop under contract is owned by the government unless specifically noted otherwise in your contract. After all, it's government money that pays for the work, and they retain the right to do whatever they want with the code (or "deliverables" in contracting terms). Now, if you obtained written approval to release the code under the GPL from the COR (contracting officer's representative - whomever manages your contract matters on the govt side), there is nothing you can do.
    To be honest, it would be in your best (legal) interest to take down any postings of the software immediately until the whole matter is ironed out. (Just to make sure you can't get nailed for further distribution after you were aware there was a problem.)
    On a different note, as mentioned in other posts, sneaking the GPL past people who don't understand what it entails was a pretty shady move. I fully believe in the GPL and free software (I develop some myself), but you should take careful steps to prevent something like this in the future. Also, don't think that all government/military types are clueless idiots who are so entrenched in buracracy (sp?) that they can't tell which way is up. We do exist, and we are trying to educate the masses!!
    If you read this, please let me know how things turn out - I'd be interested to know.
  • The formality of agreement may make it more or less difficult to enforce the law but that does not affect the existance of a contract under US law.

    Not reading or understanding a contract may be an excuse up to a very limited point but none of those points seem to have occurred here. There is no mention of anybody being mentally incapacitated (drunk or high) or unable to exercise proper judgement (minor, mentally incompetent), nor was there any mention of pressure put on these people to sign now or forget the deal. Cluelessness is generally not a legal defense in any jurisdiction I am familiar with (IANAL). The people who were charged with overseeing the contract approved the license and at least one version of the code was published under the GPL. These people either did or did not have the right to do this. That is the crux of the question. Do all license contracts have to be personally signed by the President or is it generally safe to assume that when a military officer hires your company to provide code and the direct supervising officer says its ok to use the GPL, that a valid agreement has been fashioned. This is important stuff because you could get the exact same runaround about getting paid at all. Hey, *we* didn't approve that contract, therefore you don't get paid.

    My guess is that if the programmer sticks to his guns, in the end the military will take it out of the approving officer's hide but the code will remain open. If I were that programmer though, I would start looking for a new job. Uncomfortable situations like this tend to shorten careers no matter what the outcome.

    DB
  • If it's developed for the government, it must be public domain. According to US Code: Title 17, Section 105 [cornell.edu], the Federal Government is not entitled to Copyright protection:

    Sec. 105. Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works

    Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

  • The issue here is weather they have the right to create a version of the software that is non-GPL. Since you were hired on contract, unless there is a written contract to the contrary, the organization who paid for the development owns the copyright regardless of what notices you have placed in the code or documentation.

    If the organization owns the copyright, then they can distribute it under any license they want. There are a number of duel license products.

    The point here is that the organization paid for the development, and are entitled to use it as they see fit.

    The moral here is that if you create something on contract, and you don't want ownership to belong to the client, then you should specifically draft a contract to that effect.

  • The government is a contractee, just like anyone else, and they're governed by the same laws. If they didn't specify licensing in the contract, and the contractor is the rightful owner of the code, then the government is stuck. The owner gets to name the license.

    I've found it to be very helpful to spell this out in the contract before doing any work on the system in question.

    Currently, as an example, I'm doing a database project for a local nonprofit organization. I explained to them that I really want to specify in the contract that I retain copyright to the work, because that way I won't have to keep running back to them for permission every time I might want to reuse some code on another project. The client organization, however, is licensed to do anything they please with the code, including modifying and/or redistributing it. (Sort of a private GPL.) They agreed to this, as it gives them all the useful things that copyright would have given them.

    And I furthermore told them, although it wasn't necessary to put this into the contract, that I was planning on GPLing the result when I was done. Not having anything to gain from keeping the source closed, the client said that was fine with them too.

  • To be fair to the author the codeperson, it is not clear when s/he discovered that his "superiors" did not understand the implications of the GPL. If the "superiors" did agree to use this license, then they have to take equal responsibility in understanding the implications of the GPL.

    It is not likely that the author does own the copyright. The author did know that s/he was/is working for the military on this project, right? ;) Do you remember that paperwork you signed way, way back when?

    Has the code been released? That dictates whether the copyright owner has to continue to release that version of the source...unless the copyright owner claims that the source was stolen. If this is not the case then the copyright owner can forget GPL or whatever.
  • As a long time contractor who has worked on DoD and DoJ contracts I can say that unless the contract explicitly names the developed code as "a work for hire" the ownernship defaults to the developer. This is the same rule that applies for any intellectual property - photography, painting, writing, etc - unless specified otherwise the creator owns the copyright.

    Now, it is entirely possible that the contract does specify work for hire, but we don't know that and as the default is otherwise, you are one very wrong ac...

  • Re:What a mess. (Score:3)

    by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @05:14PM (#405607) Homepage Journal
    • First, I have to say that it seems rather unethical to have done this. Your employer didn't understand the GPL but you snuck it by anyway? Explaining it would have been the right thing to do, rather than giving free software a bad rap by having them discover the terms after the fact. If you were employed by them, you may even have had a legal obligation to make a good-faith effort before taking the code for yourself.

    How do you know that the person writing this question didn't make a good-faith effort? All he said was that they didn't understand.

    IANAL, but I would think that all that would be required for a good-faith effort is drawing their attention to the fact that it is being licensed under GPL and pointing them to a copy of the GPL for review.

    • I also question if you legally own it.

    I agree with this. The software and all IP arising out of it is almost certainly subject to the contract that your firm has with the DoD. It may be something of a grey area, because the US Government is not allowed to hold copyrights, if I'm not mistaken, but the contract may require that the copyright be held by an entity that licenses the software to the US Government for the use they require.

    This being the case, you probably will not be allowed to retain copyright and license it under the GPL if this conflicts with the purposes under which the Government wants to use it.



    ---

  • Re:similar problem, solved? (Score:3)

    by Roblimo ( 357 ) on Saturday February 24, 2001 @05:20PM (#405608) Homepage Journal
    Even simpler solution: Since the U.S. government belongs to U.S. citizens, and I'm one of those citizens, tell your boss that I personally order the release of all software developed with my tax money under the GPL.

    If either the contractor that is paying you or anyone in the MEDCOM chain of command doesn't like this, tell them I must ask for their resignations, effective immediately, along with return of any of my money they have spent on proprietary software.

    Robin Miller
    Elkridge, MD
    -------
    US citizen,
    voter, and
    taxpayer.
  • Did you use any existing GPL'ed software?

    Perhaps he doesn't own it...but if he was doing this work under the impression that use of the GPL was okay, did he include any existing GPL-protected code? What other names are now involved?

    If the produce is contaminated by the GPL, the employer will have to decide how to deal with it. The simplest might be to leave it all under the GPL -- that only becomes an issue when the code is "distributed" to others. They can develop and use it internally, but have to make the source available to anyone who they sell or license the software to.

    I don't know if the author is entitled to a copy. That's an issue between him and his employer.

  • I think a couple issues need to be clarified. As a general rule, when the government contracts out for original software development, the copyright is held by the contractor (or whomever the contractor may assign it to). When the government hires an employee to develop software, then the government "owns" it, in the sense that the employee cannot claim copyright on it. By law, however, with rare exception (such as government-owned academic institutions), works developed by the government are not copyrighted.

    If your employer, the contractor, believes it owns the copyright, that's between you and your employer. If, for some reason, DoD has a legitimate claim of ownership, then it's public domain.

    Incidentally, the third option -- a government employee developing software while off-duty, using only his/her own equipment, and not as part of his/her official duties -- then the employee keeps the copyright, but the government will insist on a no-cost license for government use.
    cb

  • That doesn't take into account a few different scenarios.

    You are right that if the software was developed in a closed box, and they simply said "from day one, this is GPL", then there is no reason for them to stick to the GPL. They own the copyright, and are the only holders of the software. It doesn't matter under what license it was never distributed under... but it doesn't matter how much writing there was -- you were never authorized to distribute the code. If you were a private entity, you would have never seen the code. You have just spilled corporate secrets.

    If the software was developed in a corporate environment and they said "from day one, this is GPL", then so long as they did not fold any non-employee contributions into the code, they could license it under whatever mechanisms they desired.

    If the software was developed in a corporate environment and they said "hey, if you can shave a year off the project by using existing GPL works, then go ahead, we'll abide". Then unless they get the permission of every author who touched the code, they're paralyzed. That's where the written document comes into play, it protects you as a developer from being kicked in the butt by upper management for their own forgetfulness. "What do you mean we don't own the code we paid you to write!!!"

  • It has been posited that your work was done as a "work for hire." (Your contract should specify, but I expect that it almost certainly is.) If that's the case, then you don't own the copyright and you don't get to choose the license.

    If, as you also say, that nobody with the authority to choose the license understands what you wanted when you proposed to release the code under GPL, then you did not, as you say, "follow the appropriate steps for applying the GPL to the software" which include, as a necessary step, getting the owners to agree with releasing the code under the GPL and understand what that means.

    You can't trick someone into accepting the use of the GPL by keeping them ignorant of what that means and so, if you don't have the authority to make that decision yourself, you have to make the persons in authority aware of the ramifications of that choice. If I were in that situation, I'd apologize profusely for overstepping my authority and put together a document directed toward the decision-makers explaining the benefits of releasing the source under the GPL.

    Further, I'd avoid lengthy discussions on the putative benefits to society for using the GPL and focus on things like potentially spreading the support burden over a larger customer base. Maintaining home-grown software is expensive and you might be able to justify that choice of licenses based simply on that. That's more likely to go over well with people who don't view this as a moral issue.

  • With the FSF, you know the quality of the advice

    But he FSF, as far as I know, isn't in the business of providing legal advice to anyone, much less to random programmers on general issues of copyright or contract law.

    they could have clarified any questions you might have on the license, especially what they mean by owner etc.

    It is not up to the FSF, or the GPL, to determine who the "owner" of the software is; that is up to copyright law, and the contract that the employer and employee made in this case. The question isn't what the GPL says, the question is whether anyone had the right to apply it in the first case.

    --Bruce Fields

  • IANAL, much less one on military issues, but I would guess that the military can ignore the GPL and other IP issues if the code was sufficiently important to national security.
  • I would:
    • Send a letter to your company's corporate counsel, attaching a copy of the GPL, and the FSF's phone number.
    • Take a nice vacation.

    --
  • It could go either way, depending upon the details of your relationship with the persons for whom you were developing the software. Applicable law includes the Copyright Act work-made-for-hire provisions, the DFARS and any private law created by your contracts (written and oral).

    The issues that need to be resolved first are (1) who is the owner of the software; (2) what licenses, express and implied were granted to the government, even if they didn't own it?

    On the general facts, I can contemplate circumstances where any result is possible. You need a competent lawyer to sort them out for you.
  • You might not like them using your code in a closed system but when developing for something like a medical system there is a higher ethical question you must consider. Even if they use your code in a closed system there is the possibility is can save lives. If you try to bring a suit against it you might inadvertantly prevent them from using it and that might cost lives. You might not like them using your code, but if it does save lives ethically how can you truely be opposed? I know we would all like credit but I would glady give credit to help someone.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Have you ever noticed when you buy software that there's usually a paragraph of legalese about terms for US Govt use of the software? There are reasons for this :-) It's specifically because the Feds have more lawyers than you do and a huge body of law and contract procedures concerning stuff built for hire, especially the military, which has a long history of buying very specialized stuff that's created just for them (or for other hired killers much like them), and a long history of the customer and contractors trying extremely hard to rip each other off because of the huge amount of future money that can be leveraged by any decisions.


    GPL and other open-source licenses actually accomplish much of what the government tries to accomplish with its contracting terms, which is that if you design something for them, they can go get more of them in the future made by somebody else, instead of having contractors saying to them "Heh-heh, those special $500 hammers are now $5000 hammers, since you didn't buy enough the first time, and if you want the plans so somebody else can make them for you for $50, the plans will cost you $10 million because we're the only one who knows OUR trade secret!" Because most Open Source license let anybody use the technology, this is pretty much prevented, but the government is used to an environment where the only way to accomplish that is by owning the software themselves.

  • All of your base code are belong to us!
  • I've been starting to see open source emerging as a business model that gives consultant developers more control over their work in areas that might otherwise be work-for-hire, and it's a somewhat balanced business model that can still work for both sides. The specific examples I've seen have been in the telephony business - a large company will hire a small group that's working on something like an H.323 or SIP (or other ugly standard) implementation to extend their work but keep it open-source. For the small group, this gives them the traditional consultant leverage that the things you learn working for one client can be reused for the next client. For the sponsoring company, it means that people who have a lot of embedded experience are now working on _their_ problems, so they get to market faster) and they get market synergy because their products interoperate with any free products (or other commercial products) built with the open-source software. Telephony has the additional issue that there's typically a lot of customization required for specific hardware, so hardware-oriented companies use free software as a way to make it easy for customers to buy their boards instead of some competitor where the customers would have to license software to develop applications that use it.
  • Let me get this straight: you were developing software for another party, presumably for pay. You put the copyright in your name, regardless of the fact that as a work-for-hire it belongs to the people who were paying you. You had it licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, even though your employers had no clue what those licensing terms were and what they really meant in a practical sense.

    At this point, let me just ask a simple question:

    ARE YOU INCOMPETENT, OR WERE YOU JUST HIGH?

    There exists such things as ethics in the engineering profession. Two of the most important ethical rules are
    • Always be honest and frank in all matters of your engineering,
    • Always keep your employers well-informed on the major engineering decisions you make
    ... These aren't hard rules to follow. They're simple, straightforward, commonsense.

    If you put your own name on a copyright, despite the fact that as a work-for-hire you have no legal or ethical basis for it, and you compound everything by putting licensing terms on it without fully informing Management as to the requirements and meaning of those terms, and you get in trouble as a result... what? Are we supposed to have sympathy for you?

    You broke the rules. You got caught. Your employers are going to do whatever the hell they damn well please with the source, and if you're smart, you'll get rid of all source that you don't have a legal and moral right to possess.
  • Why do people ask advice on Ask Slashdot where a real lawyer is almost essential?

    Uh, how about
    • He may not know where to start;
    • Lawyers charge a lot, so it's good to have discussed the issues with others before you go to one;
    • Other people may have relevant experience [slashdot.org];
    • Other people may know something about the issues; [slashdot.org]
    • He might like some moral support;
    • Some people may give interesting advice [slashdot.org] that a lawyer might not think of;
    • He thinks it would be good to give idiots a chance to run their mouths [slashdot.org] so that we know who they are; or maybe even
    • He thought we might be interested.

    Oh, that was a rhetorical question. Sorry. You can have your soapbox back now.
  • 'There is no mention of anybody being mentally incapacitated'

    Come off it, they're military.
    How much more mentally incapacitated can you get than someone who kills people for a day job ?
  • though I'm sure someone will fiercly debate it, the copyright should be held by the US ARMY, and so long as the software is in use on systems owned by them, there is no problem. Nothing is being distributed.

    Just as if my company develops software for internal use on our own systems based on GPL software, we are not under obligation to distribute it.

    The GPL covers how you may distribute the software, not simply how you may use it.
  • Releasing internally on systems owned by the copyright holder (which could be a company/organization), is not distribution, therefore, the GPL (which covers the terms under which you may distribute the code) does not apply.
  • After all, it's government money that pays for the work, and they retain the right to do whatever they want with the code...

    Whooooaa Nelly! Lets rephrase that: "After all, it's public money that pays for the work, and they retain the right to do whatever they want with the code".

    There is no way in hell that the government should even think about getting into the proprietary, closed software business with public money.
    --

  • Although it seems counterintuitive at first, that's the way it works. Bear with me for a minute...
    If government money procures a product - software, a tank, an aircraft, or even a desk or computer, it remains the property of the government until it's approved for public release. Now, in the case of the heavy equipment (planes, etc.), I think that you can understand why you don't see them up for sale on govt.ebay.com. However, in the case of the other, lesser stuff, there IS a release procedure for getting it out to the public. If you look up "DRMO" (I forget what it stands for), you'll basically find warehouses that house outdated computer and office equipment (and lots of other stuff, too) that are available for purchase. Of course you won't find anything classified there, and lots of equipment gets "de-mil'ed" for safety/security purposes.
    When it comes to "information", things get a bit more hazy. If you want to requisition papers and documents on a specific subject, you can file a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request for it, and, providing the correct security concerns are met (again, nothing classified), the information will be released. (This also protects govt employees from having their social security numbers, etc. released.) For software, I'm pretty sure that the same procedure would be followed. Now, having said that, I'll admit that I've never seen anything like that done before, because by the time the software would be releaseable, it's terribly outdated and nobody really cares about it anymore.
    This might seem terribly bureaucratic, and it probably is, but think of it in this sense: Military medical records can give very specific insight into where our forces strengths and weaknesses are, which is clearly of strategic use to any enemies. Don't think that this is 100% security through obscurity (albeit somewhat) - any code I've seen developed under contract is quite rigorously tested by a wide range of people.
    I'm not advocating all of this as the most logical (or best) way to do things, but, for the time being, that's how things work... Hope this could provide at least a little insight.
  • My point is, it's *stupid* to ask legal advice on a public forum because you don't know the quality of the advice you're getting.
    No, you don't know the quality of the advice you're getting. That doesn't matter, though. In the end you should be going to a lawyer, and saying "does this look like a viable answer". Then the lawyer can look up the authorities to support (or trash) what was said in the public forum.

    What's said here, however, could give the lawyer ideas that he wouldn't have had without our input. Just because you're not a lawyer doesn't mean that you couldn't make a contribution.

    I once took a case to the court of appeal, that no lawyer I knew of was willing to touch. I later found out from a law professor, that I almost won the case -- and would have probably won if I had taken it to the next step. (I was going against one of the top two lawyers in the largest firm in Vancouver, and one of the government's top constitutional lawyers).

    What I learned in the process is that a lot of lawyers don't necessarily understand the law, fully, themselves. It's not much different than the computing world, where I once had a first year student sheepishly ask me "is it OK to do the assignment this way?" That sheepsih question actually changed the way that recursion vs loops was taught at the U of Alberta, and may have even changed many textbooks since then (I haven't looked recently).

    To a thousand eyes, any problem is transparent.
    --

  • A couple of things here:

    What do you really want? Do you want to prevent them from using the code in a non-GPL way? Do you want to prevent them from un-GPLing what's already been released? Do you want to allow the proprietary version, but are simply worried about the implications of the GPL release?

    A few people have mentioned valuable points:

    • If you're working under contract, you probably have copyright in the code, unless the contract says otherwise
    • Even if you don't own the code, if the copyright holders (employer or govt) gave permission to GPL the code, then what's already released is legally GPL.
    • The current copyright holder {you|employer|govt} has the right to have future copies released under another (or even multiple!) licenses... If they want to it, it's an issue between you and them.

      There's nothing wrong with forking a proprietary version of the code, as long as the copyright holder agrees to it.

      • One Gotcha: If notable pieces of the GPL code were actually developed by someone else, they may have some right to that portion of the code (dunno about this). That may complicate the proprietarizeation of the code (that part of it_)
    • The GPL doesn't bind the copyright owner. It only binds the non-copyright holder. It says that "unless I say otherwise, you can only distribute this code, or derivative works (e.g. compiled) of it if you let other people have access to the source.

      If you (as copyright owner) give a copy to someone else and say, "you can develop a proprietary version with this", then they can do whatever you allow them to do with that copy.

    • Just because the code is GPL doesn't mean that the database they're using is GPL. (someone else pointed this out). This may make them less queasy about letting the code stay GPL.
    I guess that the other question to ask is why do they want to non-GPL a future version of the code? If they simply want to keep some of the data that they gather private, then they don't have to GPL the code. If they want to develop proprietary add-ons, then they can keep the already developed portions GPL, and the new parts proprietary (though it would be polite to modularize it so that you can continue to sanely release the GPLed portions

    The job of a lawyer is to gather together a set of rules -- sometimes old and arcane, and arrange them so that the client can do what they want in a sane, and predictable manner. The biggest difference between this, and the computer world is the language that is being used.
    --

  • And your point is that the military can violate the GPL anytime they like because they are not capable of being held to a contract? Real bright, fella.

    DB
  • According to 17 USC 105 [cornell.edu], "works of the United States government" are not under copyright restriction. U.S. government works are defined [cornell.edu] as a "work for hire" prepared by a federal employee.
    All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
  • Just a minor point, you can use GPL software as you wish, you should have said "If I can't distribute your stuff without your license" . Even then a quick read of 7 definitions of proprietary [dictionary.com] leaves me wondering if the GPL is proprietary (if you just read the first two it is, read further and the doubt grows).
  • No matter what the company the guy works for does, he will ALWAYS have the right to put his name in the program he wrote, whether it's work for hire or whatever. Since he (co?)wrote the software he has that right. For the rest.. well.. I dont know much of the situation, so can't really comment if a company was 'duped' into using the GPL, or if they knew what they were doing. If the company knew: Kudos for pushing the GPL. If they didn't it's not that good.

    //rdj
  • No they or anyone else CAN distribute it, but the government works aren't protected by copyright, and thus are unprotected by the GPL.

    Anyone can rip them off, modify it further, and charge or not; binary only if they wish.

    Of course if the government took a GPL'd program initially and changed it the software itself would still be copyright the author- the government can't steal copyright by mere modification or addition.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close