Copyright, Copyleft, Copyshakeitallabout

[AlexH]

Hello,

Recently I contacted a company which makes an instrument that we use, to ask whether any labview drivers were available.  Unfortunately they weren't and I had to develop my own, which was rather tricky but I  more or less managed to do it.

Now the company would like me to give them a copy of my VIs, so that they can share them on their website.  I am happy to do this, even though they are not really a complete set of driver VIs in the proper labview style, but it did take quite a lot of effort, and if someone else can benefit from this all the better.

Should I worry about any sort of licensing, GPL-style? I am not interested in making money, this would be so that others would be free to improve on the work that I have done without restrictions.  I know OpenG VIs have some declaration on them, but I am not entirely sure about the implications of making such a statement or not.

Cheers,

Alex

[jcarmody]

I like to hear that you're willing to share. I believe the BSD gives folks the most flexibility to use your work, but you'd need a lawyer to know for sure. I released something to the community under the BSD license without asking a lawyer because I don't care what folks do with it (I'm just tickled every time I see that it was downloaded).

Now, your generosity aside, a commercial instrument company ought to be able to trade you something for your drivers...

[Daklu]

A (perhaps) better solution is to release them on the NI's Instrument Driver Network. Then the source code is out there and available for anyone else to use/improve.

[AlexH]

I don't think they are really in a professional enough state for the instrument driver network, but the company has said they will post them on their own website for download.  I'd just like to make sure than any restrictions on their use (or lack thereof) are decided by me rather than them.

[PaulG.]

If you don't feel these drivers are at your personal level of satisfaction don't share them with Company A ... or the entire world for that matter on a web page.

Hold on to them and improve them if you can. Some day you might be satisfied enough with them to make them public. Then you could send them over to NI's driver network.

Company A can get them from NI to post on their web page. Let Company A and NI deal with the legal stuff.

My $0.02

[crelf]

Irrespective of where you're going to share them (company website, NI's driver network, OpenG, LAVA, etc), you still need a license. Not just so you get credit, but also to protect yourself (if you don't have a license, then someone who uses your code can sue you if it'd found that doing so causes negative effects). I am also not a lawyer, but I use BSD when I'm releasing stuff to the public. It is less restrictive to others than GPL/LGPL. That said, there are a few discussions here on LAVA on licensing that you could use as a starting point, but nothing beats professional advice.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

The trick is to make sure that company A doesn't slap on a more restrictive license of their own. If you can't improve the code then maybe someone else in the community can. You want to make sure the license allows that.

Speaking of NI's Instrument Driver Network. Can someone tell me what license those drivers are under?

[AlexH]

Thanks for the replies everyone.  It seems to me that slapping on a BSD license is the best thing to do, having read up on it a little.

[Daklu]

The trick is to make sure that company A doesn't slap on a more restrictive license of their own.

I'm not a lawyer and have little interest in reading licensing details, but I don't think a company can take code from the public domain and prevent others from using it by putting a license on it can they? (Not that that's what you're saying.) They could use the source code as a basis for their own licensed code or even redistribute the same code under license, but claim sole ownership of something that is in the public domain?

[Francois Normandin]

I'm not a lawyer and have little interest in reading licensing details, but I don't think a company can take code from the public domain and prevent others from using it by putting a license on it can they? (Not that that's what you're saying.) They could use the source code as a basis for their own licensed code or even redistribute the same code under license, but claim sole ownership of something that is in the public domain?

You're right essentially: they could create a wrapper on your code and license it, sell it, or anything they'd like, except that they cannot prevent you from doing the same with the same code, or any other company from creating a similar wrapper and distribute it for their own benefit. If something is released publicly, then it cannot be patented or copyrighted otherwise. On the other hand, if you create code and sell it (or give it away) before making it public, then it could be copyrighted by the new owner. I think this is why any code that you want to keep free of royalties should have licensing terms, however simple it could be (as BSD) or more restrictive (as xGPL's).

[Daklu]

I read up on this a little bit and in the US, posting something on the web does NOT invalidate your IP rights. The Copyright Act of 1976 extends copyright protection to all "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device," although it is not clear to me if this protection extends to software. What I get out of it is if you create original software (and assuming software can be copyrighted), it belongs to you regardless of whether or not you actually apply for a copyright or where you post it.

However, the NI website includes the following:

User Contributions. Any information or material ("Communications") that you transmit to this Site is considered non-confidential. NI has no obligations with respect to the Communications, and NI is free and you authorize NI to copy, disclose, distribute, incorporate, translate and otherwise use the Communications and all related data, images, sound, and text for any and all purposes. NI reserves the right, in its sole discretion on a case by case basis, to remove, reject, or otherwise modify any such Communications or any portion(s) thereof. NI may, but is not obligated to, monitor or review any areas on the Site where users transmit or post Communications, including but not limited to discussion groups, bulletin boards or other user forums, and the content of any such Communications. NI, however, has no liability related to the content of any such Communications, whether or not arising under the laws of copyright, libel, privacy, obscenity, or otherwise. NI DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES FOR AND MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.

[underline added]

So regardless of any licenses you attach to your driver, NI can do whatever they want with it; however, if you do not include a license the other company cannot download the driver and package it as their own. How do the BSD licenses and GPL fit in? IMO neither of them protects "your rights." (Although I do think both have their uses.) The BSD license essentially protects others who use your code from you deciding to sue them at a later time. In practice it looks like it effectively releases your work into the public domain. The GPL...? I'm not really a fan of it so I'll reserve comment.

But again... I'm not a lawyer and I may have completely misinterpreted everything.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Daklu