You know what the General Public License (GPL) is <ref>The worlds most popular software license. It was recently updated in 2007. A license utilizing the current legal framework to the advantage of the user AND author of the software. https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses See http://gnu.org and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html to learn more.</ref>, because you are a Linux hacker, web developer, or other [[Free Software consultant]] who lives and breathes free software. You consult for clients, doing DevOps using Software Engineering tools such as [[Subversion]], and [[Git]] or build automation like [[Jenkins]]. You work with database engines like [[MySQL]], [[Postgres]], and [[MongoDB]]. You do System Administration on [[RedHat]], [[Ubuntu]], and [[Debian]]. You build web services, proxies, reporting systems and more on [[Apache]] and [[Nginx]] web servers. You build extensions for [[MediaWiki]], modules for [[Drupal]], or plugins for [[WordPress]]. You do User Interface based on [[jQuery]] <ref>jQuery is licensed using the MIT license, the second most popular "Open Source" license https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses</ref> and [[JavaScript]]. You extend, improve or integrate GPL software and systems, that is to say [http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page 50,000 market leading, state of the art software products]. You '''consult''' for companies, universities, governments, other organizations large and small and they all use boilerplate contract language that is completely oblivious of the software they are using, and the work that you are doing for them in a proper legal context. To a certain degree, this is understandable - technology changes rapidly while legal systems and bureaucracies evolve slowly.
In the definition of Copyright <ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101</ref>, the word software never appears. The phrase 'digital transmission' is the only hint of technology that was to come in the ensuing decades. In fact, section 102 <ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102</ref> on the Subject matter of copyright '''expressly excludes software''' in concept:
ContractStandards.com is a pretty useful website setup by '''Lambert & Associates''' (Boston, MA and Nashua, NH) that illustrates and explains in plain language the various clauses of a contract. For example, they have a page about [http://www.contractstandards.com/contract-structure/representations-and-warranties/intellectual-property Intellectual Property (Representation)]; calling it "one of the most heavily negotiated representations". (Note: you have to click on the "Clause Elements" section heading to actually view the contents.)
Unfortunately, they offer no example that would pertain specifically to a client using GPL software, and hiring a consultant with expertise in that software. If you look at their example '''[http://www.contractstandards.com/contracts/independent-contractor-agreement Independent Contractor Agreement]''' ownership is conferred 100% to the client. As in the boilerplate example, you'll likely see language from your clients about the contractor providing a "work made for hire" under the Copyright Act <ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 Any "work made for hire" confers all right to the "employer" as defined in the Act</ref> <ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/work_for_hire</ref> <ref>https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3413&context=clr Review "Work for Hire Definition in the Copyright Act of1976: Conflict Over Specially Ordered or Commissioned Works" - a review of the statute and history and differing interpretationsof what the act means.</ref> <ref>If you read Lee Gesmer, you'll leave out '''any mention''' of 'work for hire' in your legal agreements. It could be a huge mistake. https://www.masslawblog.com/copyright/the-work-for-hire-trap/
Mass Law Blog
*[https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement Balanced Employee IP Agreement] ([https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement/blob/main/Balanced_Employee_IP_Agreement.md BEIPA]) is the legal agreement '''GitHub''' (now owned by Microsoft) uses for its employees.
*[https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement Innovators Patent Agreement] (IPA) from '''Twitter''', a commitment from a company to its employees that the company will not use patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. Other pertinent policy choices include participation in anti-troll and non-aggression networks such as [https://lotnet.com/ LOT] and [https://openinventionnetwork.com/ OIN], as well as contributing to open source projects.
* [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://processmechanics.com/static/2015-07/ModelCo_IP_Policy.docx Model IP Policy] [https://www.processmechanics.com/2015/07/23/a-model-ip-and-open-source-contribution-policy/ created at Rackspace].* [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z8LTNwD9yKU_4mCN8UOhsvK05Nuk9ZAiRN6lJjZdQbw/edit Massachusetts.gov Statement of Work] boilerplate agreement which gives an example of the language used in state contracting. (Source: https://www.mass.gov/doc/statement-of-work 2018)
<br />
==Distribution explained==
To get an in-depth explanation and analysis of what constitutes '''distribution''' in everyday practice, see [http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/66/125 The Gift that Keeps on Giving - Distrubution Distribution and Copyleft in Open Source] by ''Heather Meeker''
==Contribution Agreements==
Here is the language in section 5.1 of the IPR:
<blockquote>Copyright License. Some Contributions may not be subject to copyright. To the extent, however, that a Contribution is or may be subject to copyright, the Contributor hereby grants a perpetual, irrevocable (except in case of breach of this license), non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license in such copyright to the OpenID Foundation, to other Contributors, and to Implementers, to reproduce, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display the Contribution and derivative works thereof solely for purposes of developing draft Specifications and implementing Implementers Drafts and Final Specifications</blockquote>
Section 6 of the IPR addresses patents, with essentially a promise not to assert.
*[http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Contributor_Agreements The Civic Commons Wiki] offers a complete run down of CLA and CAA examples
Please note that while Contributor License Agreements can be a good place to see proper legal text addressing complex issues of Copyright, Patents and Trademarks, they are not good practice ''operationally''. See Bradley Kuhn's perspective from 2014: [https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/ You do not need a CLA]
==Is it Viral?==
*Traditional treatment of the subject comes from the perspective of protecting against risks that the software is perceived to create. The Association of Corporate Counsel has this primer http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/quickcounsel_open_source_software.cfm While it does discuss many of the valid concerns that you would have as a corporation, it does nothing to address the proactive and beneficial things you can and should do to address the needs and benefits created by the collaboration economy.
*Cornell University Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_work
*It would be great if the Wikimedia Foundation published their Employee IPR Policy, as a reference model, but there is no mention of it at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Main#Board_and_staff_members and I don't believe it is publicly available.
== Non-competes, Work for Hire, Employment Agreements ==
* [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2517604 The New Cognitive Property: Human Capital Law and the Reach of Intellectual Property] - a paper about the expansion of Copyright into "thoughts" by non-compete agreements etc. in industry. Published by '''SSRN - Elsevier''' (Social Science Research Network) which is an open-access preprint community providing services to academic schools & government institutions. Scholars can post their early research, collaborate on theories and discoveries, and get credit for their ideas before peer-reviewed publication.
* https://faircompetitionlaw.com/2023/09/18/50-state-noncompete-chart-updated-september-18-2023/ [https://faircompetitionlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Noncompetes-50-State-Noncompete-Survey-Chart-20230918.pdf the chart in PDF] - a survey of non-competes across all 50 US states. Brought to you by Beck Reed Riden - a law firm in Boston which doesn't want employees to have the freedoms of mobility that California provides.
== GPL and What Works ==
Software Freedom Law Center, the pro-bono law firm led by Eben Moglen, Professor of law at Columbia Law School and the world’s foremost authority on Free and Open Source Software law held its annual fall conference at Columbia Law School, New York on Oct. 28. The full-day program featured technical and legal presentations on Blockchain, FinTech, Automotive FOSS and GPL Compliance by industry and community stalwarts.
The program culminated in remarks by Moglen that highlighted the roles of engagement and education in building effective, ever-lasting communities. While expressing his gratitude to his colleague, friend and comrade Richard M. Stallman, Moglen emphasized the positive message relayed by Greg Kroah-Hartman and Theodore Ts’o –earlier in the day– for creating win-win solutions and spreading users’ freedom.
[https://www.linux.com/news/eben-moglen-gpl-compliance-and-building-communities-what-works/ Here is a video and the transcript of his remarks] (2016).
== Embrace and Extend ==
Since most contributions to the Linux kernel project these days (2021) are [https://lwn.net/Articles/860989/ by paid staffers of the biggest tech companies], there is an overwhelming undercurrent of non-enforcement of the GPL in business. And who would do it anyway? There is no government or trade organization that will do GPL enforcement.
== MediaWiki and Wikipedia ==
* [[mw:Copyright]]
* [[wp:Copyright]]
{{References}}