From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8442C6C for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [5.9.151.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B63B9C for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 05:43:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1472535780.4249.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Johannes Berg To: James Bottomley , Jiri Kosina , Steven Rostedt Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:43:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1472498570.2376.44.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1472403654.2420.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160829090703.1c063975@gandalf.local.home> <1472486062.2376.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160829121615.25e5ddce@gandalf.local.home> <1472496471.14003.14.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1472498570.2376.44.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Owning your own copyrights in Linux List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 12:22 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > I suspect the eventual contract may look different. Yes, I'm sure it would. But getting $employer to accept it would be similar, I'd assume. > The problem in Europe is that the concept of ownership of the work is > usually tied to the moral rights, so you can't give it up (even if > you give up effective ownership when you sign away the economic > rights).  In the US negotiation is definitely over ownership and what > you usually end up with is so called undivided partial ownership, > which gives either party full rights to enforce and sublicense.   I > think, although never having had to negotiate this type of agreement > in europe I'm not really experienced, that you'd need to negotiate to > the point where each party has a non-exclusive licence with the right > to sublicense to have some sort of equivalence. > > Is there someone who's done this in Europe? > I'm not aware. I suspect the agreement text would end up being similar to the FSFE's FLA (https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/FLA.en.pdf), with key differences being around the grant of rights (assuming $employer wants broader rights than the FSFE here.) In the US case, I'd assume that there would also be a broader license granted to the employer than the open-source license governing the work in question? johannes