Re: [Fwd: Re: Debian and copyrights]

* BeTa [[email protected]] [2003-07-03 19:22 +0200]:

> Take a look at that : (it is a part of my investigation)
> 
> It is more funny than really implementable... but in some way, it
> makes sense ;c)

[snip]
> > > If you are author of a part of the code, you can oppose forever to
> > > its publication as proprietary.
> >
> > right... that's the last solution... but we would prefer having only
> > one copyright, to have a harmonized source code. I know that it is
> > possible giving the (c) to the FSF...
> 
> I remember reading somewhere that you can give the copyright to just
> about anyone, and Dhingis Kahn (The mogolian leader, don't know how he
> is spelled in English). And if you really want to prevent any licence
> change, then just assign it so someone that is no longer alife (this
> way you can state your world view, if you choose Ghandi, Marx,
> Charlemagne, Einstein, Neumann or others). They surely won't change
> your licence... (well, one would have to check for possible Heirs)
> 
> And what if you assign copyright to your cat?
> 
> No guarantee that that would work legally, though.

And what about the estate or decendents of Khengis Khan? (correct
spelling ;) You may end up having serious problems with this kind of
ad-hoc attribution.  Also copyrights are intended to have limited,
though renewable, timespans, (I think only 2 x 30 year periods) at a
certain point they are expetected to expire and enter the public domain.
If the given copyright holder had been dead for say > 30 years, you may
end up introducing (untested) legal situations that are better to be
avoided from the outset.

Copyright attribution is a problem, but it is a problem that I believe
is offset in two ways.

One, the code itself is under the GPL, this introduces what one could
call 'peer parity', that is, there is presure on the copyright holder to
maintain good working relations with all that work under that namespace.
The 'parity' is maintained, in part, by the threat of possible code fork.

Two, having the namespace/copyright held by a foundation, with a clear,
comprehensible and legal structure, introduces a level of accountability
from those who (presently) hold political power within the organization.
The Foundation holds the power to make decisions that effect those in
subordinate positions but the Foundation would also be responcible for
those decisions, and be accountable to the wider group.  Of course
making this democatic and transparent will always be problematic,
particularly as the organization grows, still, if we begin with a
'social contract' and  structure that is clear to all who participate,
and that our intentions are both well thought out and honest, i think we
could have a fairly scalable zynocracy (forgive the play on words). Or,
prehaps, i have read too much game theory ;)

best

cal