[Zope3-dev] Re: Can we provide a Zope3 Collective?

[Martijn Faassen]

Ken Manheimer wrote:
> Martijn Faassen <faassen at infrae.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Let me try to explain the impression someone might be getting:
>>
>>zope.org is being run by the company called Zope corporation, that
>>requires you to sign an agreement before checking in, signing over half
>>your copyright to them.
> 
> 
> I expect that the significance of signing over half the copyright is way
> different than the impression people get from the sound of it.  In fact, i
> strongly suspect the signficance may be the opposite, at least in part,
> of the impression.

That's quite possible, but the impression still remains.

> I have to start by saying that this is all based on my own uncertain
> estimation of these things - it is a theory, not rigorous knowledge nor
> zope corporation authority.  A theory i'd like to test against informed
> understanding, so i'm putting it out there.
> 
> My take on the joint copyright is that it is protection, akin to interlock
> switches which require two keys for activation.  The keys are controlled by
> different people - so neither person, alone, can activate the switch.  With
> joint copyright, neither party can *restrict* the copyright without
> cooperation of the other party.  Ie, if one part reduces the rights granted
> to users, the users need only appeal to the other party's terms.  The
> parties would have to revoke the rights together.  Considering that the
> license we're talking about is very liberal, neither party gains leverage
> that prevents the other party from granting *more* usage rights - all the
> usage rights are basically there.

That is not true in my understanding. For any pieces of contributed 
code, *both* parties have the right to restrict that code. So, I could 
contribute some code, and then go ahead and release the same code under 
the "Sign Away Your Soul License", freely. Zope Corporation could do the 
same, as it has the same rights.

Of course, Zope Corporation has an inherent advantage in this. While I 
can't take arbitrary code from the Zope repository and relicense it 
under the "Sign Away Your Soul License", as I presumably don't share 
ownership of all that code (only my contributions), Zope Corporation 
could do so, as it *is* owner of all of it.

Of course if that happened, the community can take the latest ZPL 
licensed version (which is enforced by the contributor's agreement) and 
continue to develop that -- open source licenses cannot be withdrawn, 
but future versions can be affected. That is what is protecting us 
against the leverage you mention.

I gain this understanding from this page:

http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorIntroduction

"""
Essentially, a committer signs an agreement stating that all code that 
the committer submits has been created by her, or that she has verified 
that the contributed code violates no rights. She further agrees that by 
committing it into the Zope CVS tree, that she is sharing ownership 
50/50 with Zope Corporation. She retains all rights to do whatever she 
wants with the code, no strings attached whatsoever. Zope Corporation 
gets the same rights.
"""

and the following from the agreement itself (point 3):

"""
Legal Effect of the Contribution. Upon committing a change or new work 
to the Zope source Repository (a "Contribution"), you agree to assign, 
and hereby do assign, a one-half interest of all right, title and 
interest in and to copyright and other intellectual property rights with 
   respect to your new and original portions of the Contribution to Zope 
Corporation. You and Zope Corporation each agree that the other shall be 
free to exercise any and all exclusive rights in and to the 
Contribution, without accounting to one another, including without 
limitation, the right to license the Contribution to others under the 
Zope Public License. This agreement shall run with title to the 
Contribution. Zope Corporation does not convey to you any right, title 
or interest in or to the Pogram or such portions of the Contribution 
that were taken from the Program.
"""

So, if I read this correctly, it allows both parties to license the 
contributed code in any way you want (including the ZPL, but that is 
just to make it more explicit).

> Now, zope corp could arrange to conspire with a joint partner to clamp down
> restrictions - but zc is in no better position to do so owning half the
> copyright than they do owning none!  Owning half the copyright does not
> seem anything like owning the half the mortgage on someones house, for
> instance.
> 
> But that is the way it is *sounding* when people have been talking about it
> here.  It sounds like zope corporation gets half of something they could
> cash in on somewhere down the road, depriving everyone else of it.  I don't
> see anything like that which zc could gain.  Instead, the thing that zc
> gains is increased assurance *for the community* that the rights will not
> be restricted.

I agree that the community is not losing much in this proposition, but I 
don't see anything stopping Zope Corporation from, say, forking Zope 3 
and relicensing it under some completely different license. There is 
such a thing stopping any individual contributor, as we don't co-own 
*all* of Zope 3.

But again, this is not a huge imbalance thanks to the ZPL, which allows 
anyone to take it and fork it in any direction they want, as long as 
they don't relicense it.

> This is similar to other assurances that people get in using the zope corp
> repository.  Eg, the rigor of stating the code you're checking in is code
> to which you have proper rights is a kind of indemnification, reducing the
> chance that users will be suddenly deprived of access to code on which they
> depend because it was improperly made available in the first place.
> 
> My take on joint copyright may be wrong.  If so, it's an honest mistake -
> i'm not being promopted by nor speaking with any zope corp authority.  But
> if i'm anywhere near accurate, i can abundantly see jim's frustration with
> the zope repository being damned as being unneutral.  It feeds the
> impression that zope corporation is getting an advantage beyond these
> assurances - assurances which equally benefit everyone in the community.  I
> can see calling it stringent, which means there are greater hurdles for
> greater benefits, but biased (unneutral) would seem like a great
> disservice.
> 
> (http://dev.zope.org/CVS/ContributorIntroduction has useful discussion of
> joint copyright, for anyone who hasn't already read more about it.)

Anyway, even without the contributor's agreement you can debate 
neutrality; this is an issue of perception as much as reality. I can 
check code under the exact same BSD license copyright Infrae to an 
Infrae-hosted server or to a server not affiliated to any single Zope 
company. The latter in my mind will be perceived as having greater 
neutrality, but it is a subjective evaluation.

Again, this is *not* a complaint about the way the contributor's 
agreement works or anything to do with Zope corporation. I'm extremely 
appreciative of the way Jim, the Zope santa^H^H^H^H^Hpope, and others at 
Zope corporation have been creating, contributing, guiding things along 
here in Zope 3 land. It's just a way to make me realize I'm happier 
being a programmer than being a lawyer. :)

Regards,

Martijn