-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wish to? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
Bye.
- -- Amish K. Munshi In GNU we trust. Visit http://munshi.dyndns.org/imp for my public key.
Amish Munshi writes:
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wish to? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
Yes you can modify GPL software and give it a new name. But keep in mind that the changes need to be substantial to justify the change in the name. The change in name may be used to differentiate between the enhanced version of the software and the older version. Also the scope of the project may be broadened in the new version.
Also you will need to mention in the readme documents that the software was derived from some abc software. About the copyright owner,part of the code is not yours, so you may not be the copyright owner. But since you are releasing it under GPL, I believe it shoul not make such a huge difference. I am just guessing here.
Vinayak Hegde APGDST Student NCST-JUHU
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 07:35:52AM +0530, Amish Munshi wrote:
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wish to? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
Amish, you are free to take a GPLd program and modify that. But changing the copyright is not possible. You can make copyright for the modifications you have done. Still the main program's copyright goes to the original person.
Regards
Hi Amish
A few pointers re GPL which seek to answer your question. There is no direct reference to the scenario which you have in mind and this can be subject of making a legal assessment by an IPR expert. However, taking a logical view I would say that when you change the software, you are essentially creating something new.So, as long as you acknowledge that the source of the used code is XYZ, you should be able to rename and distribute this as a new software under GPL.
If there is any opinion to the contrary I shall surely look forward to the discussion.
HTH
- Dinesh
Based on the GPL some viewpoints -
[1] GPL permits users to publish their modified versions -
A crucial aspect of free software is that users are free to cooperate. It is absolutely essential to permit users who wish to help each other to share their bug fixes and improvements with other users.
Some have proposed alternatives to the GPL that require modified versions to go through the original author. As long as the original author keeps up with the need for maintenance, this may work well in practice, but if the author stops (more or less) to do something else or does not attend to all the users' needs, this scheme falls down. Aside from the practical problems, this scheme does not allow users to help each other.
Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.
-------------
[2] The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all third parties" and that means -
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
------------
[3] Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
------------
[4] Having "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program -
Yes, you do. "Fair use" is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it--in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.
Note, however, that there is no world-wide principle of fair use; what kinds of use are considered "fair" varies from country to country.
------------
[5] On using a piece of software obtained under the GNU GPL, can one modify the original code into a new program, and sell / distribute the new program commercially -
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.
------------
[6] Releasing a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only -
No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software--which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.
------------
At 07:35 AM 3/22/03 +0530, you wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wishto? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
Bye.
Amish K. Munshi In GNU we trust. Visit http://munshi.dyndns.org/imp for my public key. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+e8UFbCDhioPGUZ4RAromAKCNy2FVlGrwwXjid6+b4CA61+xLhgCeJd4z SOHoC/HZ6ebXeCzz5e9UuJo= =v9Cq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Best wishes
- Dinesh Bareja (M) +91 98203 0159 (T) +91 22 2878 9067 |---------------------------------------------------------------------| | ======== http://www.ideagrid.com ======= | | winning strategies ! simple ideas ! | | Open Source Products, Services & Training | |---------------------------------------------------------------------|
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Amish Munshi wrote:
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wish to? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
You can change the name, but you cannot become the copyright owner. Remeber that the code that you're using is already owned by someone else. You own the copyright only on the new code you own.
Have a look at the libyahoo2 site for an example. http://libyahoo2.sourceforge.net/
Philip
Philip S Tellis wrote:
Can I take a GPL software, modify it and give it the name I wish to? I do not mind keeping the credits of the people who have already done the project, but can I become the copyright owner of the new software? I wish to release the modified software also under GPL.
You can change the name, but you cannot become the copyright owner. Remeber that the code that you're using is already owned by someone else. You own the copyright only on the new code you own.
I would really like to get this part properly spelt out. If there's a project foobar that is distributed under the GPL. If I use code from that in my own project framitz, I know I am supposed to distribute framitz under the GPL as well. But I get to keep the copyright for framitz, right?
But what's the definiton of "part of the code"? I could copy the entire source tree and modify a few lines of code here and there, and still say "part of the code" is from foobar ...
Have a look at the libyahoo2 site for an example. http://libyahoo2.sourceforge.net/
You have link that says "GNU GPL", to a file called "Copying" ... shouldn't you customise it to reflect your copyright notice and project name?
Sameer.
PS: Writing this mail in Mozilla just to have a look-see. I conclude mutt is far far better. Never again!
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
I would really like to get this part properly spelt out. If there's a project foobar that is distributed under the GPL. If I use code from that in my own project framitz, I know I am supposed to distribute framitz under the GPL as well. But I get to keep the copyright for framitz, right?
it depends on whether framitz is essentially foobar with additions or a totally different project that's borrowed say, once source file from foobar.
In the former case, the copyright remains with the original developers, you hold the copyright on code that you develop. you will own the copyright on framitz, but not on all of its code.
In the latter case, you own the copyright on everything except those source files that are borrowed. You need to clearly mark out these sections - by commenting the header of the source file, or sometimes even the single function that's been copied.
You have link that says "GNU GPL", to a file called "Copying" ... shouldn't you customise it to reflect your copyright notice and project name?
yeah, maybe I should. :P
Philip
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 07:36:46PM +0530, Philip S Tellis wrote:
it depends on whether framitz is essentially foobar with additions or a totally different project that's borrowed say, once source file from foobar.
In the former case, the copyright remains with the original developers, you hold the copyright on code that you develop. you will own the copyright on framitz, but not on all of its code.
So all I can do is mark my extra code with suitable comments carrying a copyright notice, but I still have to mention the actual copyright holders, right? I guess that is why the first screen for XEmacs includes the copyright notice for FSF among others, although it was forked off quite some time ago.
Another related issue ... when developers contribute code to foobar, do they hand over their rights to the copyright holder for foobar?
The original copyright holders have the right to change the license terms on their work at any time. I assume this cannot have a retrospective effect on the copies that have already been licensed under the GPL. But what happens to all the contributions from other developers? If foobar suddenly becomes propietary, does that mean all the code in foobar can now be used for commercial purposes although it may contain contributions that were encouraged by the original GPL terms?
Sameer.
On 24/03/03 20:07 +0530, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
Another related issue ... when developers contribute code to foobar, do they hand over their rights to the copyright holder for foobar?
No. Your code is still copyright to you.
The original copyright holders have the right to change the license terms on their work at any time. I assume this cannot have a retrospective effect on the copies that have already been licensed
Correct. Retrospective copyright change is not allowed.
under the GPL. But what happens to all the contributions from other developers? If foobar suddenly becomes propietary, does that mean all the code in foobar can now be used for commercial purposes although it
Ummm, GPLed code can always be used for commercial purposes :). The original distributors will have to remove the code that is not copyright by them.
Devdas Bhagat
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
Another related issue ... when developers contribute code to foobar, do they hand over their rights to the copyright holder for foobar?
The original copyright holders have the right to change the license terms on their work at any time. I assume this cannot have a retrospective effect on the copies that have already been licensed under the GPL. But what happens to all the contributions from other developers? If foobar suddenly becomes propietary, does that mean all the code in foobar can now be used for commercial purposes although it may contain contributions that were encouraged by the original GPL terms?
Disclaimer: I'm just guessing. IANAL, I don't know.
If author A writes a program and distributes it under the GPL, and author B contributes to A's program, we have two copyright holders. Now, if A wishes to distribute his program under some other license, he can distribute only the code that he has written. B's contributions are GPL'ed so they can't go with the new, non-GPL license (unless B agrees to it!).
A good case to examine is the Qt library. It's distributed under different licenses, including the GPL. I wonder how they manage this. And, also, is Qt really open source software -- do they accept contributions from people outside of the Qt development team -- if they don't, then is it because it can get them into trouble (because they can't distribute others' contributions under the Qt license).
-Manish
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
Another related issue ... when developers contribute code to foobar, do they hand over their rights to the copyright holder for foobar?
They do, but they also have the choice of retaining copyright on their code. In general, if all you've given is a few minor patches to existing source, then you give up your copyright. If you contribute an entire source file - you may choose to retain copyright.
The original copyright holders have the right to change the license terms on their work at any time. I assume this cannot have a retrospective effect on the copies that have already been licensed under the GPL. But what happens to all the contributions from other developers? If foobar suddenly becomes propietary, does that mean all the code in foobar can now be used for commercial purposes although it
Yes. See sourceforge. However, they must own the copyright on all the code in order to change the licence. See also how sleepycat operates.
Philip
-
Amish Munshi -
Devdas Bhagat -
Dileep M. Kumar -
Dinesh Bareja -
Manish Jethani -
Philip S Tellis -
Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe -
vinayak_hegde＠softhome.net