Who owns copyrights of custom modules?

[ruchida]

I understand that a custom module that is created by Module Builder should be licensed under GPL, but who owns its copyrights?

The current header in a custom module is automaticaly inserted by Module Builder and it includes following lines;

* SugarCRM is a customer relationship management program developed by
* SugarCRM, Inc. Copyright (C) 2004 - 2007 SugarCRM Inc.

I know SugarCRM Inc has copyrights of the base application, but due to a copyright law, its delivative works can be owned by an entity which develops them. Based on this concept, I think a custom module can be owned by a developer who creates it.

Am I correct, and is there any plan that a custom header can be inserted via Module Builder?

[SugarDev.net]

curious indeed, I always replace the header with my own.

Also, the module builder doesn't allow for a LICENSE.txt file to be inserted into the zip.

[dtokeefe]

This has not been an issue for us or our clients and it's hard to see how I could copyright the code generated by Module Builder, since it was written for me by SugarCRM.

However, we almost always modify the Module Builder code, generally adding to it, and this seems like our work (or our clients', in work for hire) that can be copyrighted. So, we also replace the header with our own version.

Still, given the GPL and the average lifecycle of software, it's hard to say what difference this really makes...

Best regards,

David

[SugarDev.net]

True, there are more important things. But it's not an non-issue either .

[ruchida]

I asked the question because I thought the entity which has a copyright of a code becomes a re-distributor of the code and it needs to make it available. If SugarCRM automatically becomes a copyright holder of the code, SugarCRM is always asked to make the code available to everyone.

If a consultant creates a custom module on behalf of a customer and he becomes a copyright holder (I think this is a reasonable way), he/she needs to make the code available.

This is not a trivial thing to any developer who works on Module Builder.

[andydreisch]

Hi all, thanks for the line of questioning. We're verifying with our legal team just to make sure. We'll post a response once we hear from them.

Andy

[DragonflyMaster]

Interesting thread.
Reading the GPLv3 License I found what follows:

...
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
...
For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.

As I understand it, this means that:

A) a developer must release the code of his product, either adding it to it's production or upon request.

B) In the headers a developer must not remove the lines
* SugarCRM is a customer relationship management program developed by
* SugarCRM, Inc. Copyright (C) 2004 - 2007 SugarCRM Inc.
but add his own lines for copyright.

C) All developers adding something to Sugar's core become owner of the rights on what they added, but also that these rights are left to the community. This is what Richard Stallman calls Copyleft.

[andydreisch]

Hey everybody, thanks for the line of questioning. We've been consulting with our legal types and what follows is a summary of our positions. As always, we encourage you to seek your own legal advice when it comes to interpretations of GPLv3 and, as always, you should not construe this post as legal advice from Sugar.

In this summary we focused explicitly on copyrights for code produced via the use of the Module Builder (MB). (There is some ambiguity in the thread regarding this that seemed to draw attention to actual changes made to Module Builder itself, and not MB-generated code.)

First, code created by MB does not confer IP rights to the user of MB and, thus, Sugar holds the copyright to the MB-generated code. This is why the Sugar copyright header exists in MB-generated code.

Changes to the MB-generated code under GPLv3 leads to a derivative work. This, in turn, triggers GPLv3 provisions regarding redistribution of modified code. This topic is discussed in our FAQs and the GPL FAQs (notably, this FAQ).

GPL requires you to stipulate your copyrights in the header or a derivative work. See this page for a useful guide to how to incorporate these stipulations in derivative works.

Finally, providing copyrights has no particular meaning if your code is not redistributed but it's a good thing to do anyway just in case.

I hope this clarifies things a bit more. Let us know if otherwise.

Andy

[DragonflyMaster]

Ok, so basically my points A and B were right while C wasn't, because I didn't consider the use of Module Builder.
Thanks for the legal explanation Andy.

[ruchida]

Andy,

Thanks for the clarification. It is very clear.

But this leads me to the first question again. Let's say that a developer likes to use MB to generates a custom module and likes to sell it to his customer. Can he do that legally? (He is not the IP holder.)

And when another developer likes to get this code, who should he ask to? does he need to ask SugarCRM because the IP holder is SugarCRM?