I was following Brady’s recent forum post that mentioned adding my contact information to the “copyright notice” page, but it dawned on me that I may actually want to reassign my copyright to someone like OEMR.
I don’t know too much about it, and I’m sure some other folks can chime in here, but I recall some organizations like the Free Software Foundation recommending that copyrights be assigned to a central organization for a few reasons. I think it makes it easier to enforce or defend licensing agreements.
Is assigning copyright to OEMR something we want to get into, or encourage? Also, is this something that OEMR wants to have happen?
OEMR.org’s reason for existence was to enable some things to happen that could not happen without an legal entity. OpenEMR is a software script, and not an entity after all. All projects can benefit from a central organization, provided the usual voting/election confidence/no-confidence processes apply to it’s leadership, and membership is open. I am an OEMR board member (newbie, neophyte and possibly erstwhile), but I know of no mission statement specific to this end. Specifics like that (speaking unofficially as someone who might be mis/un-informed) have not been addressed as of this date. OEMR.org IS the only OpenEMR -related non-profit that seems to fit your description though. I would recommend that you submit your membership to the organization officially, carefully consider your options, and then discuss that with the board.
-Art
Member OEMR BOD
The advice I have given in the past and I hope is echoed by others here is to make a comment at the beginning of the file with an attribution to the person creating the file usually with contact information in the event the developer needs to be contacted for some information. The copyright can be retained by the author or donated to the non-profit OEMR. At this time we are advising the author to use the GPL v. 3.
Tony McCormick has raised the issue of officially switching to the Affero license since this would close the loop hole of sharing the software from a server to client end users without also also releasing the software to the client. Currently private companies avoid honoring the spirit of the GPL v3 by not even moving there software off their servers. the Affero license closes this loophole. This license has not yet been discussed yet by members of the project but will likely be a serious contender.
I think we’re going to need a GPL licensing expert to weigh in here. There’s a lot to consider regarding choosing a GPL version, assigning copyright, etc., and we’re going to need a deeper level of detail in this discussion.
Rod, unless you are offering to hire legal counsel, I don’t think we have one yet. We are going to have to read the licenses ourselves and figure it out. The larger software companies have been skirting around loopholes in the GPL v 2. for years. Version 3 which has been out since 2007, helps close some of these loopholes having to do with modules that are associated with the main software license. References for those of you who would like to investigate the legal ramifications of the software license that we have chosen:
This is a paragraph by paragraph comparison of the two licenses:
The Affero clause is an optional clause that attempts force “ASP” type operations where the vendor keeps all the software on a central server to release derived works under the same parent license. The vendor makes modifications to the software but does not release the software under the GPL and keeps it unreleased “as a our business edge.” Under the GPL v2 and the standard GPL v3 this behavior is perfectly legal to not release derived works. The difference with the Affero clause is that the vendor is required to release derived works to the client. This includes full open source code and a copy of the license to the client.
And I kid you not, some of the developers at the conferences I have been attending really believe that the GPL is “Not an Open Source License” because it is so restrictive. Many of the really large projects have gone to “permissive” licenses like the Apache License, BSD License or “Mozilla License”. The argument is the permissive really help foster innovation and attract much more developer talent.
The take home message here is the more restrictive you are, the harder is to attract talent and grow your project. Managing the project in as “Open Source” goes beyond just the code. An Open Source Management style is also necessary for Project growth and adoption.
In this fashion the Affero clause may actually suppress growth at the same time that it tries to force release of the software.
Thanks Sam, that’s helpful. I’m not a big fan of lawyers but would definitely want to pay attention to the published wisdom from the experts about this. There’s a lot to read and understand in that comparison.
On a practical note, all the licensing now is GPL2 and in many cases the developer is unknown or may not be responsive or cooperative. So any changes will probably be on a “moving forward” basis and of course we should try to reach agreement as to recommendations. Where there is disagreement, developers of course have the power to license as they see fit, and the project admins need to decide what they will accept other than GPL2.
Rod, I think most of the code is GPLv2 with the “or greater” clause intact (a.k.a. GPLv2+), which means any licensor can transparently upgrade to GPLv3. Brady, we can still use GPLv2+ contributions but, we can no longer use GPLv2 contributions that lack the “or greater” clause though.