Forum: GNU Radio Copyrights using gr-modtool

I've noticed that gr-modtool keeps FSF's copyright assignment for a lot
of boilerplate (CMakeLists.txt, QA code, etc.) but puts a hook for the
end user's copyright statement in block source files. Is this a pretty
standard way of doing things?

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sean Nowlan
<sean.nowlan@gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I've noticed that gr-modtool keeps FSF's copyright assignment for a lot of
> boilerplate (CMakeLists.txt, QA code, etc.) but puts a hook for the end
> user's copyright statement in block source files. Is this a pretty standard
> way of doing things?

Yes, pretty much. Of course, this is just my understanding of how
copyright of works is handled, and obviously IAMAL.

Since the code that is made with gr-modtool comes directly from GNU
Radio, it is 'our' code, so it's copyright FSF, not you. Any
modifications or additions you make to the code at that point is now
yours and therefore you can put your own copyright on it. Also, since
it's made with a GPLv3 tool and copies GPLv3 code, the resulting code
made with this tool is GLPv3, so the license notice in there is also
still appropriate.

Tom

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:04:20AM -0400, Tom Rondeau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sean Nowlan
> <sean.nowlan@gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > I've noticed that gr-modtool keeps FSF's copyright assignment for a lot of
> > boilerplate (CMakeLists.txt, QA code, etc.) but puts a hook for the end
> > user's copyright statement in block source files. Is this a pretty standard
> > way of doing things?
>
> Yes, pretty much. Of course, this is just my understanding of how
> copyright of works is handled, and obviously IAMAL.

I assume you meant 'IANAL'. It kind of reads the opposite way :)

MB

--
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Communications Engineering Lab (CEL)

Dipl.-Ing. Martin Braun
Research Associate

Kaiserstraße 12
Building 05.01
76131 Karlsruhe

Phone: +49 721 608-43790
Fax: +49 721 608-46071
www.cel.kit.edu

KIT -- University of the State of Baden-Württemberg and
National Laboratory of the Helmholtz Association

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Martin Braun (CEL)
<martin.braun@kit.edu> wrote:
>
> I assume you meant 'IANAL'. It kind of reads the opposite way :)
>
> MB

Yeah, typo....

Tom

On 03/12/2013 11:24 AM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
>>> copyright of works is handled, and obviously IAMAL.
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
With the understanding that I will *not* take any answers as *actual*
legal advice, is it generally reasonable to say:
1) If I copy a gnuradio block (copyright FSF), tweak a few things, and
redistribute, FSF retains copyright and I have no copyright to the 
changes
2) If I build a block from the ground up, it's still GPLv3 since it
depends on gnuradio, but I may either maintain copyright or assign it to 
FSF

--sean

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Sean Nowlan
<sean.nowlan@gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
> I've noticed that gr-modtool keeps FSF's copyright assignment for a lot of
>
> advice, is it generally reasonable to say:
> 1) If I copy a gnuradio block (copyright FSF), tweak a few things, and
> redistribute, FSF retains copyright and I have no copyright to the changes

No, that's not what I said (or at least meant). The code generated
from gr-modtool is copyrighted by the FSF. If you add any
modifications to the file, that new code will be your copyright. You
would then add a copyright notice into the file to say that this is
copyright you, 2013.

> 1) If I copy a gnuradio block (copyright FSF), tweak a few things, and
> redistribute, FSF retains copyright and I have no copyright to the changes
> No, that's not what I said (or at least meant). The code generated
> from gr-modtool is copyrighted by the FSF. If you add any
> modifications to the file, that new code will be your copyright. You
> would then add a copyright notice into the file to say that this is
> copyright you, 2013.
Ok, thanks. I didn't mean to imply that's what you said; just getting
further clarification. :)
Basically I'll retain FSF copyright notice (it would be a violation to
remove it) and add mine.

--sean

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Sean Nowlan
<sean.nowlan@gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Basically I'll retain FSF copyright notice (it would be a violation to
> remove it) and add mine.
>
> --sean

Exactly. Didn't want anyone to think that just because they used
gr-modtool that we would be automatically assuming the copyright or
their code. That is definitely not its intended use.

Tom