I am currently developing a software and thinking of using the Open Source License (it’s a long story why the group of people I am working with are doing this - the short story is that it is more of a ‘community’ project than commerical)
However, as this software is multimedia in nature, and involves music, sound effects, arts and animation, I am wondering if the OPL covers those aspects, or just the source code? The musician I am working with is too hell-bent on protecting his pieces.
And if I release something under Open Source, do I get to retain the right to the name of the software?
LostCause, as the owner of a piece of software, no license applies to you – it applies only to those whom you license the software. You retain all rights to the original code. Of course “you” could be singular or plural, whichever applies to your case.
As people contribute code back to your project, and if you choose to commit their changes to your code, then you are subject to your own license; the code returned to you is open source and you would have to honor it. But as long as you maintain your own, original code, it’s yours to do with what you want.
There is no such animal, to the best of my knowledge. Are you perhaps thinking of the OSL or the GPL?
Generally speaking, most open-source and GPL-compatible licences apply to the software (i.e., computer code) only. There are separate licence schemes available for artwork, music, and documentation. Some of these are linked to from the FSF.
Again, what do you mean by “open source”? This is a general term used to describe a class of software licences, not the name of a specific licence. You would have to read the specific licences you’re interested in to know whether they place any restriction on forking with the same name. The GPL, for instance, does not have such a restriction.
Note that there are other (arguably better) ways of protecting a name besides using a software licence. Trademarks, for example. Though you may be able to use a software licence to enjoin someone from using your source code to make a new software package with the same name, there is nothing which prevents anyone from writing from scratch an entirely new program with the same name. Names aren’t copyrightable.
This is not true. You are subject to their licence, not yours. If their licence happens to allow you to incorporate the code into your project, then you may. Otherwise, you may not. Normally, this is not a problem with most open-source and GPL-compatible licences, since in order for them to have used and modified the software to begin with, they had to have consented to your restriction that they licence any modifications under the same terms.
Yeah, it’s the GPL which I was introduced to (sorry for messing up the terms).
Let me see if I get it right. I can use my own code anyway I like, others can use it any way they like…if they make changes to the code and I decide to incoporate it, then I’ll have to respect their license…
Then whose code it is? (ouch)
Does GPL means anyone can modify my source-code and call it their program?
IANAL, but based on my reading of GPL I think the answer is yes, they could redistribute your code as their own as long as their program is also GPL.
You could GPL the source and trademark the name. This would allow you to control the use of the name if not the software. That means someone could modify and redistribute the code, but they could not distribute their software using your name.
[micco is correct; the basic thrust of the GPL (available here) is to grant others the right to use GPL’ed code in any manner they wish, except that they may not interfere with the free redistribution of that code. So yes, others can reuse code under the GPL. If this is not the thrust of your group’s intent, another license is better.
With regard to the “naming rights”, the GPL does not itself offer any protection. It does require that anyone distributing GPL’ed code retain the copyright notification for that code, and that anyone distributing modified versions of the code must make it clearly distinguishable from the original, which together mean that someone distributing your group’s code does have to credit you. However, there’s nothing to stop Microsoft, say, from releasing a workalike program, with similar functionality but no derivative code, and calling it Microsoft Visual LostCause.Net. So long as they have not accepted a license for your code, are not distributing that code, and are not preparing a derivative work of the code, the license does not apply to them. Generally, any open source license will share this basic characteristic.
And you are not conversant with the GPL, either. The code belongs to whoever wrote it. I cannot take a piece of software that is under the GPL and pass it off as my own. I have to retain the original copyleft notices and references to the original author.
I guess we differ on “as their own”, but I think I was correct. If you GPL your code, you cannot control redistribution by others as long as they also GPL their code.
Yeah, I guess I should have been clearer on that point – I was speaking as if the code were GPL’d – any changes to the code committed back would then also be GPL’d, which while your original license is really the next guy’s license back to you. So while the initial GPL was “your” license, it’s not really when someone else sends back changes.
This can be significant both ways. For example you GPL your Killer.app, but you still retain all rights – you can sell non-exclusive rights to a company (for example) under an entirely different license, even closed-source. For example, XYZ wants to integrate Killer.app into their own program. License it to them with a different licesne and earn a buck. BUT, on that token, you can’t take someone else’s contributions to your project and make other licenses outside the scope of the license of the given-back code unless your “private” license is compatible with the license given you. Am I saying that clearly enough?
Say I create my SuperApp.cpp and GPL’ed it. Someone added something to it - so he can re-distribute it but he still have to include the notice that the original SuperApp.cpp is written - I am still free to do what I could with my SuperApp.cpp, right?
Let say someone added a feature to SuperApp.cpp and I took a look at it. I say “hmm, I could do that too” and re-write that feature myself from ground up. Is there anyway that someone accused me of breaching the GPL?
And about other media – GPL only covers the source-code, am I correct? Could I specifcy “SuperApp is under the GPL but all medias are copyrighted by their respective owners”. If so, how do those media-owners ‘give’ me the right to use their artwork such that they are too not ‘open-source’?
Yes, they can redistribute with or without modification but you are still free to do what you like. Note that GPL does not restrict the recipient but actually grants rights. That is, your source code is copyrighted which means they can’t redistribute your work. If they accept the terms of the GPL, they are granted the right to distribute your source as long as it remains GPL. You still retain copyright, so as Mort Furd points out, they still have to acknowledge your parts as belonging to you.
If your code is GPL’d then any code they distribute has to be GPL’d too, so you can just copy their code directly. If they make modifications to your code but do not distribute it, then they don’t have to release source, so you’d have to reverse engineer on your own and your rights to do that are just like any other reverse engineering project (i.e. governed by other protections like copyright, trademark, or patent on their implementation).
You could GPL your source code but not any data files (e.g. a GPL’d MP3 player distributed with non-GPL MP3 files). In that case, normal copyright applies to all non-GPL parts. Note that there’s no reason you couldn’t GPL the data parts too, so “GPL only covers the source-code” is only accurate if that’s how you decide it should be.
Sort of like a tree falling in the forest when no one is there. If the modified program is not distributed, then how will you know that there has been a change that you could reverse engineer?
The point of GPL is to prevent code from being taken out of the open source environment - GPLed code can not be made closed source by any one except the original copyright holder - and if he does it after having developed it with contributions from others he will probably catch hell if he doesn’t also leave it available under the GPL as well. Anyone who takes GPL code and tries to make it proprietary (except for the original copyright holder) has broken the terms of the license and no longer has the right to use that code at all. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) deals with this type of thing. Usually it is a mistake on the part of the licensee, and they correct the mistake by releasing the code under the terms of the GPL as they are supposed to, and all is well. I’ve not heard of a case where the FSF actually had to take someone to court over a breach of the GPL.
For more info on the GPL, check out the FSF homepage.
This happens all the time because coders talk to each other <gasp>. Say I grab some GPL software that looks useful and modify it for my purpose to use in-house, only within my company, not distributed. Then I meet the author at a conference or because we’re friends or because we actually interact with other humans and I thank him for his great work and tell him about my mods. Maybe I even demo it for him. Or maybe I demo it for the journalist who’s profiling my now amazingly-successful company that owes everything to this GPL software we started with. I haven’t made the software available to anyone outside the company, so I don’t have to release my source, but plenty of people know about the features I’ve added.
Companies making proprietary mods to GPL software and not releasing those mods because they only use them in-house is very common. In some cases it’s because they want to hold them as trade secrets, but more frequently it’s because they don’t want their people spending time supporting them or the management just doesn’t understand the OS ethic. How often the developers hear about it I can’t cite exactly, but I’ve heard of several instances. You have to try pretty hard to keep people away from that falling tree.