Matthew Garrett ([personal profile] mjg59) wrote,
@ 2011-05-17 01:14 pm UTC
  • Previous Entry
  • Add to Memories
  • Tell someone about this!
  • Next Entry
Entry tags:advogato, fedora
The fundamental problem with projects requiring copyright assignment is that there's an economic cost involved in me letting a competitor sell a closed version of my code without letting me sell a closed version of their code. If this cost is perceived as larger than the cost of maintaining my code outside the upstream tree, it's cheaper for me to fork than it is to sign over my rights. So if I have my own engineering resources, what rational benefit is there to me assigning my copyright?

(Read 21 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

Re: Depends on your focus


[identity profile] http://gould.cx/ted/
2011-05-17 07:41 pm UTC (link)
That's certainly true. But, if you're planning on contributing large amounts of resources it's probably the situation that you can negotiate with the person asking for CA. Depending on the situation, you might be better off paying them to do that work instead of doing it yourself as they'd have an understanding there. Of course, that is *highly* situation dependent.

I think there is also many cases where creating a new organization makes sense. I think a good example of this is Linaro which is staffed to do "general ARM work" where the individual chip makers then have their own staff provide specialized features for their individual SoCs.

At the end of the day, business agreements are more confusing than why we have so many programming languages :-)

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


Re: Depends on your focus


(Anonymous)
2011-05-17 09:19 pm UTC (link)
So copyright assignment is only sensible for projects where the only community contributions you encourage are one-liners?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


cjwatson: (shamrock)

Re: Depends on your focus


[personal profile] cjwatson
2011-05-18 12:45 am UTC (link)
Arguments along the lines of "you might be better off paying them to do that work" often seem to rest on the idea that developers are interchangeable resources; I think we both know that isn't generally true. If you (as a company) are planning on contributing large amounts of resources to a project, then it may well be the case that you already have somebody with significant skills and/or enthusiasm that could be brought to bear, and those can't easily be transferred to another project nor brought into existence in the company you were planning to pay.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(Read 21 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)