Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:4188 gnu.misc.discuss:55 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!portia!jim From: jim@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: copyrights, licenses and gov contracts Message-ID: Date: 29 Jul 89 22:49:21 GMT References: <6590203@hplsla.HP.COM> <955200002@upba> Sender: USENET News System Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: Stanford University Lines: 62 In-reply-to: damon@upba.UUCP's message of 19 Jul 89 18:30:00 GMT damon@upba.UUCP writes: 2. Given that an "unusual" copyright really isn't valid until it's been tested in court, has the FSF ever sued anyone for violation of their restrictions? When we're talking about copyleft, I assume that we are discussing the "GNU {CC,EMACS,...} GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE." Although the code is copyrighted and the copyright notice refers to the License, I believe it is the license and not the copyright which is the heart of the matter. In general, "shrink-wrap" licenses in which no formal documents are signed have not been extensively tested in the courts. I hope that the FSF never sues anyone, or vice versa. 3. Is it true that any of their code has been developed with government sponsered monies? You don't need to pay salaries to satisfy this requirement, just use a machine at a university purchased with goverenment money. I don't think this latter is necessarily true. We had some problems with an individual who had not signed a release form. All students engaged in research at Stanford are supposed to sign the form, which among other things relinquishes copyrights when they would conflict with the obligations of a research contract. But Stanford goofed. The release had not been signed. The sponsor wanted the software, and the former student claimed copyright and refused to release it. Although the work was done on equipment purchased or loaned as parts of government contracts, he personally was not supported with tuition or stipend by any contract funds. The lawyers said the ownership was sufficiently unclear that we had to go back and waste our time developing some equivalent software to give the sponsor. I believe that even if the research contract that purchases equipment requires release of all software developed with it, it is still up to the signers of the contract, i.e. the University and the PI, to deliver. If a student or researcher who is not a party to the contract and has not relinquished his rights by signing a release form develops something and copyrights (or copylefts) it, the government would have no recourse against the author, only against the University and the PI. But personally, I doubt that most contracts cover ALL software developed using the equipment. Most likely it only covers software developed as part of the research contract or project. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT RESEARCH CONTRACTS ARE? Let's move this off comp.lang.c++ and over to gnu.misc.discuss, which seems somewhat more appropriate. For once, I wish there were some lawyers around. There's a lot of confusion and ignorance on these issues. Anyone for a comp.iprop or comp.law newsgroup for intellectual property and licensing issues? DISCLAIMER: Almost certainly, some or all of the above is wrong. I sure ain't no lawyer. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics P.O. Box 10494 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94309 (jim@thrush.stanford.edu) (415) 723-4940