Dear James,
From our detailed investigations, the wording in the standard NOF contract
with grant recipients is quite explicit. It is this and this alone that
dictates the situation as all NOF grant recipients are legally bound by the
contract.
NOF own the IPR to "Materials" generated using NOF funding. This includes
the digitised material, graphic design as well as any bespoke programming.
This covers development and customisation.
We understand that the reason for including it is not so that NOF can derive
any revenue/rights income from it, but rather to protect the use of public
money and prevent anybody from generating revenue from a publically funded
project (which is reasonable).
In answer to your specific questions:
1. I don't believe that this is the case, NOF simply will retain ownership
of IPR to any bespoke developments, they don't appear to be seeking that
anything is in the public domain or open source. Incidentally, there are a
number of open source software tools available which can be used for content
management.
2. True, but many packaged solutions will have the ability to be configured
to operate to the satisfaction of a customer. It is only when bespoke
development is undertaken that the issues arises. It is common-place in the
software development world for developers to have a core system for which
they own the IPR and to hand over IPR to any specific
developments/customisation over and above this (as from the developers point
of view, such customisations can only work in conjunction with the core
system anyway, so there is no issue over handing over IPR).
3. Not necessarily; there are many commercial vendors having systems which
meet the standards and do not require bespoke development; secondly, many
vendors are happy to sign over IPR of the specifically developed
system/changes to NOF. I believe NOF are right to include this clause as it
would be unfair for a software developer to create a system using NOF money
and then go on to sell it on to others at a profit.
4. I've answered this above.
Regards
Chris Meaney (AIMC)
Managing Director
========================================================================
Harvard Consultancy Services Ltd, Bexin House, 2/3 St. Andrews Place
Southover Road, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 1UP
Tel: 01273 897517, Fax: 01273 471929, E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Registered in England & Wales no. 3766540
Registered Office: 50 Harvard Close, Malling, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2EJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Orangeleaf Systems [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 April 2002 10:00
Subject: IPR, Copyright and Open Source (was Re: off the shelf vs
programm ing)
Resource, NOF
Could someone please issue a clear statement in the guidelines regarding the
Copyright ownership of bespoke software, custom databases and schemas
developed for NOF-digi projects.
I am not alone in interpreting that all systems development Copyright and
IPR will be owned by NOF projects; see recent threads.
However recent MCG meeting discussions suggest otherwise.
Specifically
1; Should all Resource funded systems be in the public domain / open source?
(there are moral and commercial answers to this of course)
2; 'off the shelf' packages are rarely a perfect fit: should changes to them
be in the public domain?
3; would 1 and / or 2 be likely to severely restrict the number of
commercial vendors bidding for NOF-digi projects?
4; Do Copyright / IPR guidelines therefore _only_ apply to digitised content
and not the delivery systems?
thank you
James Grimster
Orangeleaf Systems Ltd
|