4 ms·

I can see why this is attractive in some circumstances. I don't see how this can be reconciled with copyright law. How can Anonymous Hacker show that they have

I can see why this is attractive in some circumstances. I don't see how this can be reconciled with copyright law. How can Anonymous Hacker show that they have auhority to transfer a clean copyright in their contribution? If you accept an anonymous patch, aren't you also accepting liability for all possible encumbrances?

k__ 9y ago
In Germany you can't transfer your copyright. I think an unknown crator would be the only way to make something that wasn't "owned" by him/her in this case.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  You still hold copyright even if you don't disclose. It becomes unenforcible, though.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, how does employment and contracting work in Germany? If you pay me to make a software product, does it mean that I always keep the copyright?
  - lima 9y ago
    You keep the copyright, but you give away all rights. It's mostly semantics - the result is the same.
    - Klathmon 9y ago
      So then couldn't the same apply here?
      - pluma 9y ago
        No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature on paper to be 100% in the clear. What's worse: GitMask would need to guarantee that any given PR meets these requirements and expose this status to the repository owner. This would make GitMask liable but they could escalate to the original author -- but that in turn would jeopardise the anonymity guarantees to a degree. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Person A creates application X and publishes it under a non-permissive commercial license. 2. Person A uses GitMask to create a PR to an open source project Y of competitor B and includes source code from application X in the PR. 3. Maintainers of project Y merge the PR without being able to verify the identity of the author and publish the updated version. 4. Person A sues competitor B over the use of the source code from application X in project Y. 5. Competitor B blames GitMask for introducing the infringing code. Now depending on what GitMask has done, this could result in different outcomes. A. The status quo: GitMask provided no guarantees about the legal status of the code and retains no information about the author, so competitor B acted in negligence and is fully liable. B. GitMask does provide guarantees but requires no guarantees from the author, so GitMask is at least partly liable. If GitMask retained any information about the author they can try to sue over violation of the ToS but good luck with that. C. GitMask provides guarantees and requires formal guarantees from the author. GitMask is likely liable but they can hold the author accountable. In this scenario GitMask could demonstrate fraudulent behaviour, bad times for person A. IANAL, TINLA.
    - qznc 9y ago
      There are differences between Copyright and Urheberrecht (the german thing). For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. Back to source code: No fear! If a programmer gives away source code knowingly under an Open Source licence, it cannot be revoked since the terms of publication are very clear. Still, there is no such concept as "giving copyright to a foundation" under Urheberrecht. In general, Copyright protects the publishers, while Urheberrecht protects the creators.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In copyright, transfers from authors can be reclaimed, though there is a specific 5-year time window (starting 35 years after the grant, basically) for this to be exercised. > In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. The US copyright system has a similar protection for creators of unique or limited physical works of visual art, but it doesn't protect against reproductions in derivative works or use of stock photos.
      - pluma 9y ago
        > under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher Yes and no. There is such a thing as an irrevocable usage right. But I'll concede that even an irrevocable right can be nullified under the right conditions (e.g. if the person granting it wasn't actually in the legal position to do so).
  - eicnix 9y ago
    The employee or contractor has the "Urheberrecht"(german law that states the rights of a content creator) for any code he wrote during his work. Additionally the employer automatically gains the "Nutzungsrecht" (rights to use, distribute and duplicate the work). While the employee still has the creator rights he cannot exercise them since the content contains trade secrets.
  - germanier 9y ago
    You usually sell exclusive exploitation rights in an employment relationship. That can either happen implicitly (where the rights granted are as minimal as possible to fulfil the reason the contract was concluded) or explicitly (by the way: so-called total buyout of all rights is not easily done). Additionally, software is special cased in German copyright law (§ 69b): the employer automatically gets all exclusive exploitation rights. For patentable software an additional renumeration is mandatory.
    - pluma 9y ago
      > Additionally, software is special cased in German copyright law (§ 69b): the employer automatically gets all exclusive exploitation rights. Keep in mind that's only for regular employees. Freelancers are not considered employees so §69b doesn't apply (despite the part about "service relationships"). If licensing isn't part of the contract (or more likely: if there is no formal contract at all), the freelancer retains all rights and just grants a non-exclusive non-transferable irrevocable usage right. So if you hire a freelancer and want something more than that, make sure to set up an actual contract approved by an actual lawyer. See (German): http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/nutzungsrechte-individualsoftware-vereinbarung-freelancer.html http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/nutzungsrechte-individualsoft...
      - germanier 9y ago
        > Keep in mind that's only for regular employees. Freelancers are not considered employees so §69b doesn't apply (despite the part about "service relationships") Yes, this is important to keep in mind. The "service relationships" part (Dienstverhältnisse) is referencing state employees.
        pluma 9y ago
        Yeah, I'm just pointing that bit out because Dienstvertrag ("service contract", i.e. charging per hour) is a type of contract you might use to hire a freelancer (the other one is Werkvertrag, "work contract", i.e. charging for a specific work with predefined requirements). As a former freelancer my first read of that line would have been that it also includes (sub-)contractors, which it of course doesn't. I don't know whether most business people are aware of §69b at all but in my experience many people just hire freelancers without a specific copyright arrangement and are then deeply surprised when they find out they don't actually own the project they paid the freelancer to create for them.
- pluma 9y ago
  I can tell you that most German companies that take their code's legal status seriously would reject anonymous PRs simply because it is an unnecessary liability. If it's a throwaway project with little economic value for the company, they might accept the PR. Otherwise the uncertain copyright status would be a no-go.

k__ 9y ago

In Germany you can't transfer your copyright. I think an unknown crator would be the only way to make something that wasn't "owned" by him/her in this case.

blattimwind 9y ago
You still hold copyright even if you don't disclose. It becomes unenforcible, though.
Klathmon 9y ago
Out of curiosity, how does employment and contracting work in Germany? If you pay me to make a software product, does it mean that I always keep the copyright?
- lima 9y ago
  You keep the copyright, but you give away all rights. It's mostly semantics - the result is the same.
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    So then couldn't the same apply here?
    - pluma 9y ago
      No, not implicitly. You'd need to explicitly assign a transferable right to GitMask so GitMask can transfer it to the repository owner. Accepting the ToS isn't enough for that. Depending on who you ask you need an actual signature on paper to be 100% in the clear. What's worse: GitMask would need to guarantee that any given PR meets these requirements and expose this status to the repository owner. This would make GitMask liable but they could escalate to the original author -- but that in turn would jeopardise the anonymity guarantees to a degree. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Person A creates application X and publishes it under a non-permissive commercial license. 2. Person A uses GitMask to create a PR to an open source project Y of competitor B and includes source code from application X in the PR. 3. Maintainers of project Y merge the PR without being able to verify the identity of the author and publish the updated version. 4. Person A sues competitor B over the use of the source code from application X in project Y. 5. Competitor B blames GitMask for introducing the infringing code. Now depending on what GitMask has done, this could result in different outcomes. A. The status quo: GitMask provided no guarantees about the legal status of the code and retains no information about the author, so competitor B acted in negligence and is fully liable. B. GitMask does provide guarantees but requires no guarantees from the author, so GitMask is at least partly liable. If GitMask retained any information about the author they can try to sue over violation of the ToS but good luck with that. C. GitMask provides guarantees and requires formal guarantees from the author. GitMask is likely liable but they can hold the author accountable. In this scenario GitMask could demonstrate fraudulent behaviour, bad times for person A. IANAL, TINLA.
  - qznc 9y ago
    There are differences between Copyright and Urheberrecht (the german thing). For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. Back to source code: No fear! If a programmer gives away source code knowingly under an Open Source licence, it cannot be revoked since the terms of publication are very clear. Still, there is no such concept as "giving copyright to a foundation" under Urheberrecht. In general, Copyright protects the publishers, while Urheberrecht protects the creators.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > For example, under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher, while under Copyright the rights are traded away and nothing remains with the author. In copyright, transfers from authors can be reclaimed, though there is a specific 5-year time window (starting 35 years after the grant, basically) for this to be exercised. > In Germany you cannot buy stock photos and use them however you want. The creator may sue you if he thinks he was not treated fairly. The US copyright system has a similar protection for creators of unique or limited physical works of visual art, but it doesn't protect against reproductions in derivative works or use of stock photos.
    - pluma 9y ago
      > under Urheberrecht an author can always revoke the rights of the publisher Yes and no. There is such a thing as an irrevocable usage right. But I'll concede that even an irrevocable right can be nullified under the right conditions (e.g. if the person granting it wasn't actually in the legal position to do so).
- eicnix 9y ago
  The employee or contractor has the "Urheberrecht"(german law that states the rights of a content creator) for any code he wrote during his work. Additionally the employer automatically gains the "Nutzungsrecht" (rights to use, distribute and duplicate the work). While the employee still has the creator rights he cannot exercise them since the content contains trade secrets.
- germanier 9y ago
  You usually sell exclusive exploitation rights in an employment relationship. That can either happen implicitly (where the rights granted are as minimal as possible to fulfil the reason the contract was concluded) or explicitly (by the way: so-called total buyout of all rights is not easily done). Additionally, software is special cased in German copyright law (§ 69b): the employer automatically gets all exclusive exploitation rights. For patentable software an additional renumeration is mandatory.
  - pluma 9y ago
    > Additionally, software is special cased in German copyright law (§ 69b): the employer automatically gets all exclusive exploitation rights. Keep in mind that's only for regular employees. Freelancers are not considered employees so §69b doesn't apply (despite the part about "service relationships"). If licensing isn't part of the contract (or more likely: if there is no formal contract at all), the freelancer retains all rights and just grants a non-exclusive non-transferable irrevocable usage right. So if you hire a freelancer and want something more than that, make sure to set up an actual contract approved by an actual lawyer. See (German): http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/nutzungsrechte-individualsoftware-vereinbarung-freelancer.html http://www.it-recht-kanzlei.de/nutzungsrechte-individualsoft...
    - germanier 9y ago
      > Keep in mind that's only for regular employees. Freelancers are not considered employees so §69b doesn't apply (despite the part about "service relationships") Yes, this is important to keep in mind. The "service relationships" part (Dienstverhältnisse) is referencing state employees.
      - pluma 9y ago
        Yeah, I'm just pointing that bit out because Dienstvertrag ("service contract", i.e. charging per hour) is a type of contract you might use to hire a freelancer (the other one is Werkvertrag, "work contract", i.e. charging for a specific work with predefined requirements). As a former freelancer my first read of that line would have been that it also includes (sub-)contractors, which it of course doesn't. I don't know whether most business people are aware of §69b at all but in my experience many people just hire freelancers without a specific copyright arrangement and are then deeply surprised when they find out they don't actually own the project they paid the freelancer to create for them.
pluma 9y ago
I can tell you that most German companies that take their code's legal status seriously would reject anonymous PRs simply because it is an unnecessary liability. If it's a throwaway project with little economic value for the company, they might accept the PR. Otherwise the uncertain copyright status would be a no-go.