Slashdot Mirror
Doing Open-Source Development, Anonymously?
An anonymous reader asks: "I have some free time, and I've recently started looking into some open-source projects that I'd like to start working on. (I'm a great fan of open-source. A package that I wrote four years ago, and which shall remain un-named, is probably running on you Linux system). But I have a problem: I strongly suspect that my after-hours work might be 'frowned upon' by my employer, and although I have no contractual commitment to abstain from such work, and I will not use office-computers or anything, I realize that in these times it might get me into trouble. So I figured I'll use an assumed identity. However, in order to release copyleft software, you have to first claim copyright to it, and this is not likely to legaly hold for an assumed identity. I don't want to release to the public-domain either. So what can I do?"
It would not hurt to ask. If that does not work, maybe you could find a friend and give them the copyright to the program.
Note that they will ask if your employer can have any copyright (or other) claim on your program and if that is the case you will still have to ask them for permission (and the FSF will ask for a signed confirmation that what you do is OK).
Just email them at assing@gnu.org.
Yep, this problem is real. One of Perl gurus had to quit open source community because of restrictions imposed upon him by his employer. This story was covered by Slashdot in the past.
--
Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)
If you need help with how to do this succesfully, talk to "Carlo Wood". This person, whoever he/she is, has contributed to GCC, various GNU utilities, and lots of other projects. He also shows up on mailing lists pretty often. Anyway, basically he signs everything with PGP; if at some point he has to reveal his true identity, he can show that he knows the private key to prove that he is Carlo Wood.
If you honestly believe your employer is a threat to your cause you cannot work on other, on going Open Source projects. You would contaminate the project and would potentially expose it to legal liability.
I doubt too many projects would survive such an effect. (It could be illegal to distribute the source code, etc...).
If you really want to do some programming outside of work stick to your own stuff. Open source it if you wish and realize that the project could be killed by/for legal reasons.
Just use a handle for the work, and always attach to it something that only YOU can decode (i.e., it's been gPGP'ed), so that if you ever want to prove you're the author, you can do so.
Post it to a geocities home page from a public terminal using a Yahoo login name you created from a public terminal. This way, its completely anonymous and there's no way it can be traced to you.
Copyrights still apply if the author is anonymous. Look at the many publishers in ages ago who published under a pseudoname. You may not be able to enforce you're copyleft if you want to remain anonymous, however.
But, I don't see how that matters. Lets say that you GPL a program which functions as a 3D rendering engine, but is just the core -- not the actual UI. Then some greedy company comes along and builds a user-friendly program around you're GPL'ed program, but releases it under a EULA. That EULA is automatically void, and anyone who gets that program can reverse engineer it to get the source, and may be on legal standing to demand that the company give them the source.
Alternatively, you can submit it anonymously to the FSF, then they'll enforce it for you.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Why are people so afraid of registering copyright? This is a solved problem.
If you want your copyright claim to be strong enough that it would actually hold up in court, you really want to register it anyway, and using a pseudonym or anonymous authorship is allowed, at least in USAia (and the treaties should cover elsewhere).
You can get someone else (who you trust, obviously) to sign the paperwork as your authorized agent, no need to divulge who you are, and no need to assign.
IANL, but...
If you do your OSS work:
- in your own time
- using your own equipment
- outside the scope of your current employment
it's yours, even if you signed a contract saying that everything you publish while in this company's employ is theirs.You should get this advice directly from a good IP lawyer with experience in this area (I give the google cached version because they're working on their server this weekend). You might find that he also tells you that you need not consult your present employer because the contract they made you sign is in breach of this basic legal principle of IP law. He will probably tell you that you are the equitable owner anything you do in your own time, on your own equipment, and outside the scope of your current position with that employer.
There is, of course, ample precedent for entities, including individuals publishing under pseudonyms, retaining copyright of their work.
Your main order of business (besides getting the half hour of preventative legal advice that you can pry get on a free initial consultation), is to, through your own internal CVS logs for example, continue to document the fact that the OSS work you are doing is in fact being conducted on your own equipment and in your own time.
Another measure you can take is to timestamp, sign and encrypt and periodically mail the CVS logs (heck why not a snapshot of the whole repository) off to a trusted third party, with instructions to store, and not to open the files unless it becomes necessary. This is the digital equivalent of sending yourself a registered letter with your copyrighted documents in it, and then not opening it -- unless you need to do so in front of the judge. Which you probably won't have to, but it's a heck of a good thing to have. If someone informs you they're going to challenge your copyright, your counsel will tell their counsel that you've taken these preventative measures, and poof! the problem will, in all likelihood, magically go away.
It is perfectly legal to "publish" works under a pseudonymn.
The short of it can be taken from the Library of Congress's site, specifically at the Copyright Office site (alternately found at http://www.copyright.gov). Here is a bit from the FAQ:
If you're really interested, you can get full details in this file (Note, it's a PDF), which specifically deals with copyrights and pseudonymns.
Hopefully this clears up your confusion.
Topher