From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11303 invoked by alias); 14 May 2006 16:03:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 11195 invoked by uid 22791); 14 May 2006 16:03:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 May 2006 16:03:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248D448CC1E; Sun, 14 May 2006 12:03:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21598-01; Sun, 14 May 2006 12:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59C7948CBF0; Sun, 14 May 2006 12:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <446754D5.3060105@adacore.com> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 19:34:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Quill CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: TODO List? References: <20060513154940.GB5022@nevyn.them.org> <20060514041846.GB18922@nevyn.them.org> <4466DD5C.4030008@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00195.txt.bz2 Rob Quill wrote: > Qutoing the module website: > > "Who owns my project intellectual property rights? How about we just say "copyrights and patents", rather than use the dubious term IPR, even if everyone else does in the world? This phrase tends to agree that these are property (which is controversial) and that they are rights (which is controlversial). Just saying copyrights and patents is neutral, and simply refers to actual statutory provisions. > > You own them. If you are sponsored, you still own them unless you have > explicitly signed a legal document transferring them to your sponsor. That's not quite right, if you are a full time employee, no legal document is needed for your employer to own them. Also if you sign a consultant agreement with the magic words "work for hire", the same reasoning applies (this is in the USA, laws differ from one country to another). Also in some cases, universities claim some interest in any work done by students using their facilities. In the case of the university of Texas (at least this used to be true, don't know if it still is in this age of universities trying to make money from copyrights and patents), all software developed using department facilities is by default released under the GPL. > > We would strongly discourage you from signing any contract or other > document assigning any rights to your sponsor without seeking advice > from us. Please contact the project organisers in the first instance." Well that's certainly good advice, but it may not be quite sufficient. > > So it should be fine. As I see it, it should be nothing to do with the > University, beyond the fact that I implemented some research that was > done by other people there. Right? Well these things are very tricky, and as I mention above, universities these days are trying to maximize the dollar value of their copyright and patent portfolios. So check with anyone likely to assert a right of ownership. I suppose this is off topic, but on the other hand, one of the vital issues in gcc and gdb development is to try to make sure that the GNU project can take advantage of the work that people contribute.