[LEDE-DEV] copyright questions

[Hauke Mehrtens]

On 05/09/2016 10:19 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> -# Copyright (C) 2007 OpenWrt.org
>> +# Copyright (C) 2016 LEDE project
> 

I am not a lawyer and the following statements could be wrong.

> I've always wondered about the OpenWrt copyright assigment process, and
> this looks like a perfect opportunity to clear that up.  Why do you
> assign the copyright to the project?
There is no real reason.

> What are the formalities involved here?
None

> Is there any paperwork?
No

> What legal entity is this "OpenWrt.org"
We haven't registered OpenWrt as a legal entity, OpenWrt gets
represented by SPI (Software in the Public Interest). It could be that
it implicitly gets a legal entity in some laws.

> or "LEDE project" now owning the copyright?
LEDE project is also no legal entity, it is not even represented by anyone.

> How do you ensure that they use the code only like you intended after you donated it?
This copyright notice is useless. The copyright will stay at the
individual author. At least in Germany it would not be possible for me
to give the copyright to OpenWrt or LEDE as OpenWrt and LEDE do not pay
me based on the hours I work, or in any other way.

> I am used to open source projects like the Linux kernel, where every
> author keeps their copyright.  Or projects like those managed by the FSF
> where you do hand over the copyright to them, by actually signing papers
> and mailing them in.  Both methods have pretty clear legal implications.

In OpenWrt the author holds the copyright we just haven't added the
copyright statement everywhere.

> But OpenWrt.org has always been this odd one, where everyone just writes
> "Copyright (C) .... OpenWrt.org" seemingly without any thought about how
> that works.  And the LEDE project does the same?
> 
> What I'd personally hate, was if some bad guys got control over one of
> these organisations/projects and suddenly owned the copyright of all the
> work donated to them over the years.  The bad guys could then legally
> relicense all the code under whatever license they wanted.  Isn't that
> unnecessarily risky?  IMHO the kernel model is nice for GPL'd code,
> since it pretty much prevents any relicensing at all.

As the copyright is owned by the individual authors I do not see a
problem, just bad documentation. The OpenWrt trade mark is owned by SPI.

> I think maybe a FAQ entry regarding copyright assignment would be
> nice. I am very confused by this.  And a bit scared.  But maybe I'm
> alone there?

I will add this.

Hauke