[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 25/10/06 12:58:02, jody salt wrote:
Hi Everyone, Hopefully today I will release my Blog software under the GNU GPL license, however I've got a question on how I should do my copyright. I've got a business called JodSoft (sole trader) should I use my business name i.e: Copyright 2006 JodSoft or my real name: Copyright 2006 Jody Salt
1. It's often useful to assign copyright to an official body - in case a violation has to be pursued in court - because the body may be better prepared (financially and legally) for the expensive fight.
2. That official body is best chosen from a list of reputable, solvent, publicly-accountable, non-personal bodies that are likely to be around for a long time. Hence, if you are going to do it this way, the Free Software Foundation is *much* a better choice than JodSoft or DCGLUG. IMHO, the FSF is the *only* sensible choice if you decide not to retain sole copyright on a work covered by the GPL.
3. JodSoft may, at some future date, either be wound up or bought out - either way you would lose the ability to decide what kind of licence is used for future works that are copyright JodSoft.
4. Choosing the FSF as the sole body is, IMHO, preferable to choosing two because all copyright holders need to agree before a licence can be changed or the work dual-licenced. Two bodies could disagree on how to fight the case, increasing costs.
5. Choosing to copyright some files under the FSF and the rest under your personal name (not JodSoft) is also useful and many packages and other works are copyrighted this way (including most of mine). If the copyright is split between you and the FSF, it is not likely that you would disagree with how the FSF decides to fight a violation. Equally, the FSF is not likely to agree to dual-licence or change the licence - even if you are unduly pressurised.
6. Every single "Copyright <year> ..." statement determines a single copyright holder for the combined work - ensure that your copyright statements are in line with your actual intentions - don't release code that contains ambiguous or incomplete copyright statements. Ensure EVERY source file includes a full copyright *and* licence statement, preferably at the top of the file. It is vital that your distributed tarball also includes a full copy of the GNU GPL. You may choose not to install the GPL and instead refer to a copy that already exists on the system (as Debian does) but you *must* include the full, verbatim, text of the GNU GPL in every release tarball.
7. Copyright is active the moment a work is created / begun. Copyright statements become legal instruments as soon as the work is released. Make sure you've got these things sorted BEFORE you make that all-important first release. (Release means: accessible to third-parties to download.)
Does it make any difference legally?
YES. It is the sole determinant of two factors:1. Who is responsible for pursuing those who violate the work covered by the GPL (the GPL is a copyright licence and can prosecutions for violation can only be brought by the copyright holder(s)).
2. Who is able to *change* the licence of the work in future.If there is only one copyright holder, that one body/person has complete and sole control over whether the work is ever dual licenced or if future versions are released under a different licence, including a proprietary licence.
-- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpVEEZEAao6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html