If I git clone software covered under the Confluent Community License, who owns that copy of the software?
The copyright to the software resides with Confluent, because of the copyright assignment clause that all contributors must sign. This is no different than Apache projects, which also require copyright assignment. For example, if you git clone Apache Hadoop, you do not acquire the copyright to Hadoop. Does Bryan really not understand how copyright assignment works?
To foundations concerned with software liberties, including the Apache Foundation, the Linux Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and the Software Freedom Conservancy: the open source community needs your legal review on this!
Why do any of those foundations need to review the license or EULA that Confluent chooses? Confuent isn't claiming that their license is OSI compatible (in fact they explicitly state that it is not.)
If you don't like the license, don't use the software. Or use Amazon's software, which does require a EULA (see https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ ).
> well, the copyright to the software resides with Confluent
That's not at all what he's asking. To quote from the article: "And to be clear: I’m not asking who owns the copyright (that part is clear, as it is for open source) — I’m asking who owns the copy of the work that I have modified?"
> Does Bryan really not understand how copyright assignment works?
Bryan's understanding of copyright seems to be quite correct. Your understanding of his point seems to be lacking.
I believe there’s a lot of confusion around the term “ownership”. There just might not be an answer because nobody ever “owns the copy”. As HN is quick to point out when discussing ad blockers or scihub, data isn’t a thing that you can own. You may own the physical medium, and sometimes said ownership is linked to a license (first sale doctrine, as one example), but it isn’t necessarily so.
Per US Code §117, which Cantrill links to, there is a concept of "the owner of a copy of a computer program" (direct quote from the law). So that can't be right.
I was asking who owns the copy, not who owns the copyright. And yes, it's relevant: if I own the copy (even though you own the copyright), then you are afforded the rights as the copyright holder -- which don't include telling me how I consume it, or revoking my right to my copy at a later date because I have become your competitor.
What does “afford the rights as the copyright owner” mean? It cannot mean “have the same rights”, because I believe we’d all agree that forking on github does not, as but one example, confer the right to re-license the code.
If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library). If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software. (And, in cases like Confluence, they have to assert ownership of all copies that their users are authorized to make and redistribute.)
> If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library).
That's an interesting analogy...
Is creating KSQL-as-a-service the equivalent of renting copies of the software? What would the "library exception" look like (which AIUI includes both private and public libraries)?
> If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software.
Attempts to do that contradict the "first-sale" doctrine, but that doesn't stop folks from trying.
Insinuating that anybody disagreeing with you must be corrupt (I. e. have a financial interest) is the sort of assumption of bad faith that destroys any serious discussion.
Just pointing out that the question about ownership (freedom of usage) is countered with an answer about copyright, which was specifically addressed as not being questioned at all.
The copyright to the software resides with Confluent, because of the copyright assignment clause that all contributors must sign. This is no different than Apache projects, which also require copyright assignment. For example, if you git clone Apache Hadoop, you do not acquire the copyright to Hadoop. Does Bryan really not understand how copyright assignment works?
To foundations concerned with software liberties, including the Apache Foundation, the Linux Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and the Software Freedom Conservancy: the open source community needs your legal review on this!
Why do any of those foundations need to review the license or EULA that Confluent chooses? Confuent isn't claiming that their license is OSI compatible (in fact they explicitly state that it is not.)
If you don't like the license, don't use the software. Or use Amazon's software, which does require a EULA (see https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ ).