The Right to a Contribution: An Exploratory Survey on How Organizations Address It

Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 451)

Abstract

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects are characterized by the opportunity to attract external contributors, where contributions can be in any form of copyrightable material, such as code or documentation. In most of them it is understood that contributions would be licensed in similar or compatible terms than the project’s license. Some projects require a copyright transfer from the contributor to an organization for the work contributed to a project, such documents are known as copyright assignment agreements. In a way, it is similar to the copyright transfer than some researchers grant to a publisher. In this work we present an exploratory survey of the multiple visions of copyright assignments, and aggregate them in a work that researchers and practitioners could use to get informed of the alternatives available in the literature. We expect that our findings help inform practitioners on legal concerns when receiving external contributions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allyn, M.R., Misra, R.B.: Motivation of Open Source Developers. Intl. Journal of Open Source Software and Processes 1(4), 65–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brock, A.: Project Harmony: Inbound transfer of rights in FOSS Projects. Intl. Free and Open Source Software Law. Review 2(2), 139–150 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brock, A.: Understanding Commercial Agreements with Open Source Companies. In: Thoughts on Open Innovation: Essays on Open Innovation from Leading Thinkers in the Field, pp. 119–139. OpenForum Europe LTD for OpenForum Academy (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engelhardt, T.: Drafting Options for Contributor Agreements for FOSS: Assignment, (Non)Exclusive Licence and Legal Consequences. A Comparative Analysis of German and US Law. SCRIPTed 10(2), 149–176 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogel, K.: Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fontana, R.: Contributor Agreements Considered Harmful. Audio of talk given at OSCON 2011. Online (July 2011). http://faif.us/cast/2011/aug/30/0x17/
  7. 7.
    Fontana, R.: The Trouble With Harmony. Online (July 2011). http://opensource.com/law/11/7/trouble-harmony-part-1
  8. 8.
    Fontana, R., Kuhn, B.M., Moglen, E., Norwood, M., Ravicher, D.B., Sandler, K., Vasile, J., Williamson, A.: A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects. Software Freedom Law Center (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Free Software Foundation: Information for maintainers of GNU software. Online (November 2012). http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/ (accessed: December 8, 2012)
  10. 10.
    Gamalielsson, J., Lundell, B.: Sustainability of Open Source software communities beyond a fork: How and why has the LibreOffice project evolved? Journal of Systems and Software 89, 128–145 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    German, D.M., Hassan, A.E.: License integration patterns: Addressing license mismatches in component-based development. In: 31st Int. Conf. on Soft. Eng., ICSE, pp. 188–198 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jim, G.: Copyright Assignments. Online (July 2000). https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2000-July/msg00332.html (accessed: December 9, 2012)
  13. 13.
    GNOME: GNOME Foundation Guidelines on Copyright Assignment. Online (July 2010). https://live.gnome.org/CopyrightAssignment/Guidelines (accessed: December 9, 2012)
  14. 14.
    Guadamuz, A., Rens, A.: Comparative Analysis of copyright assignment and licence formalities for Open Source Contributor Agreements. SCRIPTed 10(2), 207–230 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jakob, S.F.: A Qualitative Study on the Adoption of Copyright Assignment Agreements (CAA) and Copyright License Agreements (CLA) within Selected FOSS Projects. JIPITEC 5(2), 105–115 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jensen, C., Scacchi, W.: License update and migration processes in open source software projects. In: Hissam, S.A., Russo, B., de Mendonça Neto, M.G., Kon, F. (eds.) OSS 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 365, pp. 177–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemp, R.: Current developments in OSS. Computer Law & Security Review 25(6), 569–582 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Tech. rep., Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (0400011T.1) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhn, B.: Project Harmony Considered Harmful. Online (July 2011). http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/07/07/harmony-harmful.html
  20. 20.
    Lerner, J., Tirole, J.: Some Simple Economics of Open Source. The Journal of Industrial Economics 50(2), 197–234 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maracke, C.: Copyright Management for Open Collaborative Projects-Inbound Licensing Models for Open Innovation. SCRIPTed 10(2), 140–148 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Markus, M.L.: The governance of free/open source software projects: monolithic, multidimensional, or configurational? Journal of Management & Governance 11(2), 151–163 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mcgowan, D.: Legal aspects of FOSS. In: Perspectives on FOSS, ch. 19, pp. 361–391. MIT Press (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meeks, M.: Some thoughts on copyright assignment. Online (December 2009). http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/copyright-assignment.html (accessed: April 27, 2011)
  25. 25.
    Metzger, A.: Internationalisation of FOSS Contributory Copyright Assignments and Licenses: Jurisdiction-Specific or “Unported"? SCRIPTed 10(2), 177–206 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moglen, E.: Software Freedom Law Center Opinion on the Oracle/Sun Merger (2009). https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/04/software-freedom-law-center-submits-opinion-oracle/
  27. 27.
    O’Mahony, S.: Guarding the commons: how community managed software projects protect their work. Research Policy 32(7), 1179–1198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Mahony, S.: Nonprofit Foundations and Their Role in Community-Firm Software Collaboration. In: Perspectives on FOSS, ch. 20, pp. 393–413. MIT Press (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosen, L.: Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law. Prentice Hall (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shuttleworth, M.: The responsibilities of ownership. Online (July 2011). http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/687 (accessed: December 9, 2012)
  31. 31.
    Smith, D., Alshaikh, A., Bojan, R., Kak, A., Kohe, J.M.: Overcoming Barriers to Collaboration in an Open Source Ecosystem. Technology Innovation Management Review 4, 18–27 (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    West, J., O’Mahony, S.: Contrasting Community Building in Sponsored and Community Founded OSS. In: Proc. of the 38th Intl. Conf. on System Sciences, p. 196c. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wielsch, D.: Governance of Massive Multiauthor Collaboration. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law 1(2), 96–108 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu, T.: On Copyright’s Authorship Policy. The University of Chicago Legal Forum 2008, 335–354 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations