Do Read: Diaspora Contributor Agreement
Developer licensing gets a bit sticky.
We wrote last week about Diaspora, the open source social network designed to offer privacy to users who are fed up with Facebook's regular policy changes and the threat of privacy violation. Last week, the site and its code went live for developers, but for those out there ready to dive into the social networking platform should take note: A few passage from the Contributor Agreement have members of the open source community concerned.
You hereby assign to us joint ownership, and to the extent that such assignment is or becomes invalid, ineffective or unenforceable, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, royalty-free, unrestricted license to exercise all rights under those copyrights. This includes, at our option, the right to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other licensing arrangements;
You agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work (or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work.
With respect to any patents you own, or that you can license without payment to any third party, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, no-charge, royalty-free license to: (i) make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer your contribution in whole or in part, alone or in combination with or included in any product, work or materials arising out of the project to which your contribution was submitted; and (ii) at our option, to sublicense these same rights to third parties through multiple levels of sublicensees or other licensing arrangements.
In short, Diaspora can take and use any contributions at the company's choosing and can sublicense the contribution to other parties. If someone at Diaspora makes a piece of software or code based on a developer-submitted contribution, the derived work is owned entirely by the person who made it. Nowhere with the document does it specify what qualifies as a derived work.
In the agreement, Diaspora also makes it a point to mention that with the exception of the above clauses, all rights and titles are reserved for the contributor. The company also agrees to release any contributions licensed under a suitable Free Software Foundation-approved license.
The full terms can be read here.
licensing goalshey, stay calm.
it looks like the diaspora guys used this part of the license to be able to contribute parts of the code to the ruby community.
anon, rambo tribble and gplfan, you should send in suggestions about the license to the guys. that helps more than complaining.
hari hariWell That's as clear of case of unmitigated greed and dishonesty as your likely to see.
The diaspora project is for me dead. I hope I never have to hear about them again. The project's founders shown their true colours.
Hmmm ...It sounds like Facebook is contributing more than just code; the attitude seems to have metasticized, as well.
GPL the whole thingI wouldn't contribute a single bit of work to people who want to become the owner of it by free.
One of the operative words in the previous sentence is "owner". Because GPL prevents people from stealing (even with "consent" obtained through deception), *all* software and software-related work should only be released under GPL. Otherwise, there is the opportunity to do what the Diaspora gang is trying to do: potentially steal contributed code.
There is a f****** bastard born every second...
MSBuild is now just another GitHub project as Redmond continues its path to the light.
New rules emphasize collegiality in coding.
Upstart lands in the dust bin as a new era begins for Linux.
HP's annual Cyber Risk report offers a bleak look at the state of IT.
But what do the big numbers really mean?
.NET Core execution engine is the basis for cross-platform .NET implementations.
The Xnote trojan hides itself on the target system and will launch a variety of attacks on command.
Spammers go low-volume, and 90% of IE browsers are unpatched.
Adobe scrambles to release patches for vulnerable Flash Player.