Home opinion-and-analysis Open Sauce Canonical copyright assignment policy 'same as others'

Canonical chief executive Mark Shuttleworth has called for an uniform copyright assignment policy for contributors to free and open source software projects.


He told iTWire that while many companies and institutions used such assignment to include contributions in projects of which they were the primary copyright owner and contributor, "they all use divergent contracts, and it would be good to standardise and harmonise those".

Shuttleworth was reacting to queries raised in connection with an article in the Linux Weekly News where editor Jon Corbet had expressed reservations about the Canonical policy. Corbet mentioned that he had asked Canonical some queries but received no answers over the course of a couple of days.

(It must be noted here that Canonical took less than three-and-half hours to provide a detailed response to iTWire's queries; the delay in publishing this article is solely because this writer was on holiday.)

Elaborating on his point, Shuttleworth said, "for example, Intel required copyright assignment for contributions to Clutter and other projects. Novell to Moblin. Red Hat has a number of contributors' agreements too. There's a long list of those agreements; a few of them are poisonous but they are the rare exception.

"The guidance at Canonical is that we encourage our employees to sign copyright assignment agreements for the projects they participate in (as far as I know we've done so for MySQL, Zope, FSF, Novell, Red Hat, Intel and others) in order to facilitate the upstreaming of their work. There are variations on the language used. Canonical's was highlighted in a recent LWN article, but I think the article created the very mistaken impression that Canonical's agreement is materially different from any of the others I've mentioned."


Shuttleworth is the founder of the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distribution and, due to its popularity, every move that Canonical, the company behind it, makes, comes in for intense scrutiny, at times by those with no affiliations, but often by those who are deeply conflicted.


"All copyright assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, and as a result such projects attract more investment than other projects which don't create the same opportunities for underwriting companies," Shuttleworth said.

"Canonical's agreement is not in any sense unusual in that regard - except that the folks who wrote it chose to try to reassure people that we are only asking for contributions on projects where we publish a free version. There are variations on the theme - some take a 'licence back' approach rather than an assignment, others use an 'unlimited licence'; those variations seem mainly driven by the preferences of the particular legal department that drew up the agreement."

He said most copyright assignment agreements also included IP clauses to prevent trojan contributions. "Again, there is variation in the language used, but the intent in all cases is the same, and Canonical's approach is, in my view, simpler and cleaner than most.

"If you chat with (FSF legal adviser) Eben Moglen about this, he makes a very compelling case for the dangers to companies of accepting contributions without such an agreement in place - which is one of the reasons the FSF does so."

Shuttleworth said such agreements were easy to demonise. "The most common complaint I've heard is 'why can't a company accept my patches to them under the same licence that they give me the original code?' But that suggests that the two contributions are equal, when they really are not. One party contributes a whole working system, with a commitment to continue to do maintenance on it, the other contributes a patch which is (generally) of no value without the rest of the codebase. "


He said: "The one very interesting grey area is that of plug-ins and extensions, where the contribution could well be a whole work in its own right.


"The only place I've seen that question get ugly, though, is in the OpenOffice.org project, between Sun and Novell (both of which require copyright assignment on specific projects)."

Careful analysis of the real source of contributions to major open source projects would "support the idea that corporate investment and participation in the ecosystem, usually with copyright assignment, has been a major positive force in getting the free software stack to the point where it is today. It's not the dominant factor, but it's vital."

And he took a potshot at some of the whiners, saying: "The folks who appeared to be complaining about Canonical's agreement in the LWN article are the same folks who in the past have said Canonical makes no contribution to the open source ecosystem.

"How ironic that their complaint should centre on a project that Canonical underwrites! They also mostly work for companies that have their own copyright assignment requirements for their own projects.

"I would very much like to see a common contributor agreement, and Canonical would likely adopt standard language that addressed the key points that all the major current agreements address."

47 REASONS TO ATTEND YOW! 2018

With 4 keynotes + 33 talks + 10 in-depth workshops from world-class speakers, YOW! is your chance to learn more about the latest software trends, practices and technologies and interact with many of the people who created them.

Speakers this year include Anita Sengupta (Rocket Scientist and Sr. VP Engineering at Hyperloop One), Brendan Gregg (Sr. Performance Architect Netflix), Jessica Kerr (Developer, Speaker, Writer and Lead Engineer at Atomist) and Kent Beck (Author Extreme Programming, Test Driven Development).

YOW! 2018 is a great place to network with the best and brightest software developers in Australia. You’ll be amazed by the great ideas (and perhaps great talent) you’ll take back to the office!

Register now for YOW! Conference

· Sydney 29-30 November
· Brisbane 3-4 December
· Melbourne 6-7 December

Register now for YOW! Workshops

· Sydney 27-28 November
· Melbourne 4-5 December

REGISTER NOW!

LEARN HOW TO REDUCE YOUR RISK OF A CYBER ATTACK

Australia is a cyber espionage hot spot.

As we automate, script and move to the cloud, more and more businesses are reliant on infrastructure that has the high potential to be exposed to risk.

It only takes one awry email to expose an accounts’ payable process, and for cyber attackers to cost a business thousands of dollars.

In the free white paper ‘6 Steps to Improve your Business Cyber Security’ you’ll learn some simple steps you should be taking to prevent devastating and malicious cyber attacks from destroying your business.

Cyber security can no longer be ignored, in this white paper you’ll learn:

· How does business security get breached?
· What can it cost to get it wrong?
· 6 actionable tips

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Sam Varghese

website statistics

Sam Varghese has been writing for iTWire since 2006, a year after the sitecame into existence. For nearly a decade thereafter, he wrote mostly about free and open source software, based on his own use of this genre of software. Since May 2016, he has been writing across many areas of technology. He has been a journalist for nearly 40 years in India (Indian Express and Deccan Herald), the UAE (Khaleej Times) and Australia (Daily Commercial News (now defunct) and The Age). His personal blog is titled Irregular Expression.

 

Popular News

 

Telecommunications

 

Sponsored News

 

 

 

 

Connect