Some notes on copyright and licensing

Some notes on copyright and licensing Started by AngelinaBelle · February 08, 2013, 02:29:27 pm · Read 38753 times 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. previous topic - next topic

Some notes on copyright and licensing

February 08, 2013, 02:29:27 pm

Hey all,

I wanted to share some legal tidbits that might be interesting to everyone contributing to the Elkarte project. This information comes from the Software Freedom Law Center.

1) The copyright line question -- the answer, for Simple Machines, is that the copyright statement says "Simple Machines and Simple Machines contributors". This acknowledges that the organization has the right to defend against copyright infringement. This is only important to Elkarte if it ever wishes to have the "Elkarte project" sending notices to copyright/license violators, as opposed to having them sent on behalf of the individual contributors.

2) Some small recommended changes to the copyright block and distribution
a) Where each file says "license statement at <URL>", it should also be "and in the file license.txt at the top level of this distribution"
b) There should also be a mention, at the top of the file, of a contributors.txt
c) and, of course, license.txt and contributors.txt files at the top of the distribution.

3) If Elkarte wants to do more to establish copyright, it will register copyright ($35 online) to each major release. Minor releases would be derivative works, and so would be covered by the copyright on the major release. The idea is to AVOID ever going to court, because court is too expensive.

Angelina Belle
VP, Simple Machines.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #1 – February 09, 2013, 06:04:45 am

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 08, 2013, 02:29:27 pm
1) The copyright line question -- the answer, for Simple Machines, is that the copyright statement says "Simple Machines and Simple Machines contributors". This acknowledges that the organization has the right to defend against copyright infringement. This is only important to Elkarte if it ever wishes to have the "Elkarte project" sending notices to copyright/license violators, as opposed to having them sent on behalf of the individual contributors.

Is this not what actually just caused WW3 at SM?

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #2 – February 09, 2013, 07:39:12 am

Sort of. The "kind of told" side of it.

AngelinaBelle, thank you for the heads-up.
Could you please make known to us what information have you provided SFLC, when asking for their recommendations? Your email(s) of the exchange, or the relevant part of, for the purpose of this question.
You're saying you have an "answer" but you're not telling us the question.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #3 – February 09, 2013, 12:36:31 pm

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 08, 2013, 02:29:27 pm1) The copyright line question -- the answer, for Simple Machines, is that the copyright statement says "Simple Machines and Simple Machines contributors". This acknowledges that the organization has the right to defend against copyright infringement. This is only important to Elkarte if it ever wishes to have the "Elkarte project" sending notices to copyright/license violators, as opposed to having them sent on behalf of the individual contributors.

I don't fully understand.
First off, the proposal to have the copyright notice tweaked this way has been made to SM "corporation", and SM has rejected it without even admitting they did so. It was a compromise, which shouldn't have been necessary as compromise, but anyway.

What this says, however, is that SFLC advices that a "corporation" (or project) has standing to sue for copyright infringement, only because they write (c) in the notices?
That's a joke, probably. Whatever you add in a poor notice, doesn't give you the right to sue for copyright infringement.

You either hold copyright, or you don't. If you don't, the only other option is to do it exactly on behalf of contributors*.
A notice doesn't "give copyright". It might acknowledge what exists or not, but not "add" copyright. So you can only sue on behalf of contributors if they enable you, or assist them when *they sue.

So what exactly does this mean, mind pasting exactly the wording you have received from SFLC on the matter?

I suspect that what SFLC means is far less: that you can send a notice to infringers, thanks to the so-called "evidentiary weight" of notices. Meaning, 3rd parties can see a notice if it is written at all (as opposed to not have a (c) notice at all), and when they remove it, it's clear they did so intently, removal is an action. They can't claim "oh I didn't know this code was copyrighted". But the notice text does NOT make any difference to who is the copyright holder: and Simple Machines "Corporation" is not.
This was the issue - the issue SM created - that they must "hold copyright". Not that we can tweak the notice.

I think same goes for ElkArte (though for Elk, it's slightly more interesting, since we're an informal association). Sure any of us can send an email and sign it "ElkArte project", saying "look, it said (c) ElkArte project and you remove that", but that means nothing else than a way to do so on behalf of contributors. And, "the project" can't sue (note that this is different than a poor sending of an email). Only copyright holders can, unless they explicitly give rights to sue on their behalf to some entity.

Removing copyright holders from the (c) notice doesn't do that. Adding an entity to a notice doesn't do that.
It's a text, not a contract, not an assignment, not something that would make a difference as to who the copyright holder is.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #4 – February 11, 2013, 05:15:38 pm

I agree that the truth of statements about who the copyright holders are is the same no matter what is in the copyright line. That line is merely for information, to let everyone know who the copyright holders are, since they might not know without this information line.

For SMF, the SFLC lawyers told me "Simple Machines and Simple Machines contributors" is the most descriptive and most useful. That is because I told them that the SMF team does function as an editor of the joint work. That is my observation of how team members set priorities for features, refactoring, and make decisions on which contributions are going to be accepted into the code. EVERYONE holds copyright -- contributors and editor, and it is useful to add that into the current copyright statement in the SMF code.
Making such a change to the copyright statement is a decision which should be made by the SMF project team members, who are more or less also the Simple Machines members.

Each project can be different, depending on how it is run. Elkarte project members are the only ones who can explain to the world how the Elkarte project functions, and whether "Elkarte" belongs in the copyright statement at all, or whether Elkarte would prefer only "Elkarte contributors".

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #5 – February 11, 2013, 05:28:26 pm

Quote from: TestMonkey – February 09, 2013, 12:36:31 pmthe proposal to have the copyright notice tweaked this way has been made to SM "corporation", and SM has rejected it without even admitting they did so.

I think this was a signal-to-noise problem.
I think that, by that time, there was so much confusion and argument, and so many people confused about what was "legally OK" that this proposal got lost in the noise.

I read so many posts, and understood so little myself, that I could not have any opinion about what the best copyright line would be.

And I will review my notes, so I can post more of what I actually asked the lawyers, both in email and over the phone. I understand this context is important to understanding.

My only thought was that legal counsel was needed. And so, with the assent of some other folks at Simple Machines, I did that.

If I personally offended anyone by failing to understand the law well enough to recognize this proposal as a good one the first time it came around, I sincerely apologize for my own actions.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #6 – February 15, 2013, 11:04:13 am

To make myself clear.
I appreciate your efforts and I consider the role you have played in this coup, more as one of those being fooled, than actual initiator. I do consider that your role is unfortunate.
Please take the rest of the notes as not referred personally. They are not.

I will make a few quick initial corrections. I will come back on this.

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 11, 2013, 05:28:26 pm
Quote from: TestMonkey – February 09, 2013, 12:36:31 pmthe proposal to have the copyright notice tweaked this way has been made to SM "corporation", and SM has rejected it without even admitting they did so.

If I personally offended anyone by failing to understand the law well enough to recognize this proposal as a good one the first time it came around, I sincerely apologize for my own actions.

I said it was something proposed to the corporation as compromise, a temporary compromise for that matter. To calm down the loud intentional yells of certain people and their corporate agendas.

I did not say it was "omg the law".
I did not say it was in any way warranted. Legally or otherwise.

But. That's the past.
For the record, I no longer support anything of the kind. It was strongly rejected by two contributors, to my knowledge, in the meantime. I am one of them.

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 11, 2013, 05:28:26 pmMy only thought was that legal counsel was needed. And so, with the assent of some other folks at Simple Machines, I did that.

"Some other folks at Simple Machines" means: no one knew what the management was going to tell SFLC.
You discussed in closed, BoD-private boards, closed to everyone, and didn't bother to ask anything, not even, y'know, developers and contributors. Those who actually were DOING THE WORK you were "talking" about to SFLC.

You'd think they might have an idea as to who has been "editing their work", huh? In the past 10 years, by the way.

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 11, 2013, 05:15:38 pmEVERYONE holds copyright -- contributors and editor, and it is useful to add that into the current copyright statement in the SMF code.

Let me get this straight.

The entry-level for the SMF team is two months of simply providing user support in the boards.

So, according to the information provided in this topic.

If you want to "own copyright"¹ to the SMF codebase, then all you have to do is:

provide 2 months of support in the boards.
in the 3rd, you can be invited in "the SMF Team", and in the SM Corporation.
then, you automatically "own copyright" over the code. The "corporation", you say, does. SFLC "told you so".
or, perhaps it's not automatic, you also should behave according to any of the following:
- claim you "make decisions over prioritizing of the code refactoring". It doesn't matter if you're willing to step up and do the work. It doesn't matter if you even know what code refactoring is. It doesn't matter if developers consider your particular opinion grounded in valuable reasoning or not.
- yell you "make decisions over what contributions are accepted into the codebase". No need to get a github account or actually read pull requests, nor contribute to them, it "just works"^tm).
- state you "set priorities for features". Or, simply propose a feature I suppose. Don't bother to use the issue tracker, just sit on your seat and post it "in the team boards" closed view.

Then, miracle: you're the copyright holder of the SMF code. Your corporate management states that SFLC "told you" this is the US copyright law².

You can just sit and talk and by that, "own copyright" over developers work.

Have I got this right so far?

¹ This is a quote of the expression used by certain people over at SM.
² Rather, this is what some people's agenda to achieve from the legal counseling, combined with what SFLC thought they're being told.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #7 – February 15, 2013, 12:09:50 pm

OK, first up, as I understand it, Angelina was the one who actually spoke to the SFLC. I would also note that I have been known to stand up and shout this one from the rooftops.

There are multiple issues at stake.

Firstly, the matter of original and individual copyright ownership.
Is there any doubt of understanding that those who have contributed code hold copyright on the code they have contributed? They hold copyright. Even those who signed CLAs have not waived that, they just gave SM a licence to use it. The proposition as put forward essentially asserts the copyright of the code in each file as 'SM + all contributors' with a full file indicating everyone who has contributed. This is in line with how the Apache project operates. (And incidentally with the way the CLAs were originally written, based as they were on the Apache CLA)

Secondly, the matter of collective copyright ownership.
I own the copyright on the code I contributed. You own the copyright on the code you contributed. There's no doubt or assertion to the contrary.

Who owns the total collective code? This is where it gets tricky. You and I might own individual lines, individual functions or more. But who owns the collective copyright on how those lines are assembled into a single work?

More importantly, who is going to defend the work when claims are made against it (either by people copying it inappropriately, or against claims of copied work)? Are you going to defend it? You can defend the parts you wrote, but you have no business defending the work to which you have no copyright, and that would get laughed out of any legal centre you walked into with it, including a court.

SM as the distributor has a certain amount of legal precedent in its favour as being the collective copyright owner as an organisation.

Thirdly: copyright exclusivity
This is the part I think you're most upset about, and I think if I'm honest it's a misunderstanding on your part.

It has never been the intention of SMF to claim sole and exclusive rights to anything you contributed. It may have been misunderstood as that - and certainly that was the impression I was given, more than once.

However, the intent has always been about protecting the work - at no point were you ever asked to sign over your copyright. Assuming you signed either or both of the CLAs, you should re-read the clause about what you granted to SMF - a perpetual non-exclusive irrevocable right to use the work and to build derivative works. But that doesn't change the fact that you own it. You always did. Just as I always owned my contributions. Just as Unknown legally owns his, etc.

The whole concept of the CLA was about joint ownership - we still own our work, but we allow SM to use our work and in return for our contribution, they defend it on our behalf as part of defending the overall package.

Thus the correct copyright line is indeed "Simple Machines and Simple Machines contributors", on the basis of the two separate strands, with the full list of contributors included with the package. This is how other, longer established, larger projects work.

It also provides a blanket of protection - if there were to be a lawsuit, it would naturally target the parent distribution first rather than targeting individuals.

Your argument about 'owning copyright' is flawed, as is to a point the viewpoint of the person who probably made that quote (if it is who I think it is). You can, after a couple of months of support, be eligible for team duties. And onwards to NPO membership.

However. that does not give you any rights to the code's ownership. You certainly don't own anything in the code unless you put it there yourself, not even as an NPO member. The organisation owns some limited rights, but not enough to claim ownership of anything.

If you leave the NPO, you don't get to magically keep the rights you had. The organisation has those, not the people in it. Only people acting in an official capacity, working on official business, can actually make any claim - and even then it's still not as strong as any claim you hold on anything you contributed.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #8 – February 15, 2013, 02:02:23 pm

Question: do we have to import all the arguments and acrimony from the SMF boards to this site?

Suggestion: anyone who wants to do that should get a room, and leave the rest of us in peace.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #9 – February 15, 2013, 02:17:09 pm

Re: Antechinus.

I am well aware that the topic is prone to hot discussions. However, I am not going to prevent use of elk boards because it's prone to hot discussions, nor am I going to censor fully all my statements - though I refrain more than I probably should.
On the contrary, I am stating only a few of the things that need to be stated.

FYI, don't worry too much: I and only I take full responsibility for my statements. I have actually tried to understand what the heck was SFLC told by the management, I have contacted them (since there is no "omg legal matter here, look SFLC said we're ALL copyright owners" anyway, but some interests at SM make the scarecrow appear so), and I stand by my statements.
Since this site has been "discovered" so-to-speak, before we (somehow) may have intended, people from SMF community may find this discussion useful.

Counter-hint: put it on ignore and/or use disregard.

And hint: if you don't care, that's your privilege.

Re: Arantor.

You refer only at SM Corporation "why would it be useful to own copyright", and not at Angel's statements. Did I understand correctly? (before I answer, which might be tomorrow.)

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #10 – February 15, 2013, 03:33:30 pm

QuoteSuggestion: anyone who wants to do that should get a room, and leave the rest of us in peace.

It affects Elk, just as it does Wedge.

QuoteYou refer only at SM Corporation "why would it be useful to own copyright", and not at Angel's statements. Did I understand correctly? (before I answer, which might be tomorrow.)

I've had the privilege of seeing a little more depth to what's been said. The reality is that SMF does not, has not, and will not lay claim to own your contributions nor does it, will it or has it laid claim to copyright of your individual contributions. Nor mine. Nor anything else.

It has laid claim to the total sum of the package. That is what the SFLC have said. You and I individually might have copyrighted contributions for bacon and eggs while SM holds the order in which these things have to be cooked to make a fantastic breakfast.

I see no problem with SM and contributors being credited. If anything it is more accurate and legally protective than just SMF contributors. I would love to hear what actual specific objections you have to what has been proposed and stated.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #11 – February 15, 2013, 04:31:50 pm

I did promise, and I will keep my promise, to share my notes about my discussion with SFLC with the entire SMF community.
Of course, SFLC lawyers will not answer questions about its discussions with a particular client, unless they come from that same client. They can answer your questions about what was said if Simple Machines gives permission for them to do that.

I will be happy to do my best to clear up confusion, as much as possible.

TestMonkey, If I understand you correctly, you do not agree that the project team, as a whole, should stand in the position of "editor" of the joint work (not as contributor or even editor of any individual contributions, of course). It is worth having a discussion over this. It has a lot to do with how a project is run.

I think that the current SMF team members have the understanding that the SMF team actually does have the role of editor of the work. And that one of the main reasons for setting up, first the LLC, and then the NPO, is so there is some entity which exists to protect the copyright, should that ever become necessary.

Arantor's analogy is pretty good.

Quote from: Arantor – February 15, 2013, 03:33:30 pm You and I individually might have copyrighted contributions for bacon and eggs while SM holds the order in which these things have to be cooked to make a fantastic breakfast.

Of course, not every project runs the same way. And you might not agree that this is how the SMF project functions. In the end, it might not matter, because it may never be necessary to legally defend the SMF copyright. I am sure the lawyers could do a much better job than I could of explaining all of this. So I will talk to them more about it.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #12 – February 15, 2013, 05:46:14 pm

Arantor, a note:

I am surprised you even consider the issue of the so-called "exclusivity".
That is a red-herring.

No one and never in FOSS grants any exclusive rights. Not even actual copyright assignments don't: even they grant back a maximal license (they mean exactly the converse of Apache-type CLAs.).

Note also that the *copyright license*, again, is non-exclusive, and grants exactly the rights it grants.

Please, lets move forward from that. Just leave it aside, because if that is what you read, then the reading is incorrect.

As a side note to this. So, I get that this is how people are pressured and conversations messed up in private environments at SM lately.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #13 – February 15, 2013, 07:41:16 pm

So, let's move from that, which brings me back to the question I already asked: what exactly is the problem you have with the proposal, and WHY is it a problem?

Right now all I'm getting from you is that you disagree with it because it's not what you want. This is bigger than you.

Re: Some notes on copyright and licensing

Reply #14 – February 17, 2013, 07:13:51 pm

Quote from: Arantor – February 15, 2013, 07:41:16 pmSo, let's move from that, which brings me back to the question I already asked: what exactly is the problem you have with the proposal, and WHY is it a problem?

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 11, 2013, 05:15:38 pmThat is because I told them that the SMF team does function as an editor of the joint work. That is my observation of how team members set priorities for features, refactoring, and make decisions on which contributions are going to be accepted into the code. EVERYONE holds copyright -- contributors and editor, and it is useful to add that into the current copyright statement in the SMF code.

Translation: "SMF" is dead.

Quote from: Arantor – February 15, 2013, 03:33:30 pmI've had the privilege of seeing a little more depth to what's been said. The reality is that SMF does not, has not, and will not lay claim to own your contributions nor does it, will it or has it laid claim to copyright of your individual contributions. Nor mine. Nor anything else.

In the interest of historical accuracy: of course it has (but nothing to do with exclusivity crap).
Endlessly.

To clarify a few things. (there are many ideas I have to take the time to answer, and please note: I will come back on this.)

Apache-type CLAs are maximal license grants, and honestly, they're confusing. They grant any sub-rights of copyright, except practically the right to sue for infringement. That's what they do NOT grant, to my knowledge.

In the past, we have taken them for joint copyright, because tbh that's what they almost are: copyright to both the developer and the corporation. I know I did, and afaik anyone else did. And in this sense: of course SM was thought to own the software. It has been said over and over, including in public boards.
That, as some people put it: SMF was [thought to be] "the property of the corporation".

(TBH, the license grant being so wide, even if you read (for a change) and see it as grant, of course it gives room to something practically similar anyway.)

Think. It's simple: it was intended by some to be exactly what you read, be the property, or treated as the property, of a corporation of non-contributors.
(be = be treated as. It doesn't matter "omg legally", it matters what people make of it...)

property/corporation/non-contributors. Three words that shouldn't add up in the same phrase. They had a good share in what killed the project. Because, of course, they have...
They enable and "institutionalize" entitlement. And thereby management.

They "legitimize" the incessant attempts to create an environment of control and authority, of those who don't do the work, over those who do.

That's why I have removed CLAs.

An Open Source project is not the property of anyone. No one "owns" SMF. And this is the truth. It dies anyway, but I cannot allow this. It's the only thing that I could do in the end.

OTOH. It's the same thing if an entity has more rights than anyone else: any right. Bear with me.

Quote It has laid claim to the total sum of the package. That is what the SFLC have said. You and I individually might have copyrighted contributions for bacon and eggs while SM holds the order in which these things have to be cooked to make a fantastic breakfast.

Yes and no. There is no total sum of the package, that is not what you do*. That's what it is: what you do. What commits you accept, what refactorings you make, what features you set as goals for the next release. What pull requests you accept. It's joint work of all developers/contributors, yes, and that is ALL there is to it: yours and who was making it with you.
The work of those who make it.
I did not notice any "order" being set by SM in my work. I set the order. Developers do.

(It's only if *some entity interferes with the process, that there may be something "extra" created, a difference, something copyrightable.)

Developers do so under the development process. We had, in SMF, set up a development process which transitioned from a closed environment to open development. That process welcomed everyone to take part to: to.take.part. To be a part of the project, as developers were making it.
[Compare with AB's, (and everyone else's) historically accepted assumption that "the team is the project, the rest are outsiders".]

No. A part is a part: with equal chances and equals rights to shape up the project.
Not a "outsider who donates a contribution to the higher entity".
Not "an individual that works for the corporation".
Not "a corporation/group/team with the right to impose something on you, on your work."
A part of the project, in its real sense, that SMF will never move towards... the true bigger-than-you.

The open development process offers everyone the right to help with code refactoring and whatnot. Everyone, not only the team.

In no case, I don't see here anything different than what people do*, I don't see any licensing/copyright transfered, when people work together. The sum is what it is: a commons of software. The software on which you push a button on a release.

So, where does the extra-"copyright" come from?

Now. You say, Apache is doing something, there must be some sense of this "sum" which they can copyright.
I'm not entirely sure of all Apache handlings, note. But I *think[/i] it's about: both CLAs and the Apache development processes.
On a joint work, only authors hold copyright, and they grant a license - for Open Licenses, a license that allows everyone to use/modify/share/reshare the work, in the same conditions for everyone. No one is discriminated, no one is privileged.
However, if this work was submitted to Apache foundation development processes (which of course SM has nothing in common with; SM is not Apache.), which include decision making from the foundation, then the result is edited, meaning derivative, by someone else too: by Apache. (by the way, they include the notice changes, which are only possible thanks to their 100% CLA coverage, or 97% lately)
I don't know the details of the claim more than that. But I think it's important to understand a point: for someone else to receive some copyright/licensing right which wasn't granted, this someone else has to make changes on the work.

The answer is right here.

Quote from: AngelinaBelle – February 11, 2013, 05:15:38 pmThat is because I told them that the SMF team does function as an editor of the joint work. That is my observation of how team members set priorities for features, refactoring, and make decisions on which contributions are going to be accepted into the code. EVERYONE holds copyright -- contributors and editor, and it is useful to add that into the current copyright statement in the SMF code.

The only thing that "a few folks at Simple Machines" (it is a quote, not sarcastic) ever aimed, is authority over the software. Control development.

Under the current development policy on licensing/copyright,
There is no right granted to anyone, including the SMF team, including SM corporation, to interfere with the software. Everyone can participate (that's in the license and development process I had left there), no one can interfere. Not by using copyright as means of enforcement.
=> only contributors notice is appropriate.

But,
If you accept that the team/corporation/members can always interfere, not participate, "make decisions on code refactoring" against developers will, "make decisions on the code and what gets accepted into it" (hint: by pulling authority on developers), meaning from all kinds of team processes aside from the development process, and it's even their job to do so, then and only then you have extra-rights granted: you accept that a group (corporation, team) can always interfere with the development process, they're not submitted to the same guidelines. Not work with you on the common work, but impose things on your work.

And the 'project' dies.

Quote from: Arantor – February 15, 2013, 12:09:50 pmMore importantly, who is going to defend the work when claims are made against it (either by people copying it inappropriately, or against claims of copied work)? Are you going to defend it? You can defend the parts you wrote, but you have no business defending the work to which you have no copyright, and that would get laughed out of any legal centre you walked into with it, including a court.

Lets take another example.

QuoteJudge: In the name of what do have standing?
SM Corporation: SFLC told us we are the editors, because we sit and make decisions on prioritizing code refactoring, while developers do the work.
Judge: ...okay... and where are some contributors?
SM Corporation: well we pulled them down, and there's no one left in what we call "project"
Judge: err, huh, ...why?
SM Corporation: well they were all annoying gits, because they didn't like it when we sit and made decisions on prioritizing code refactoring. But we have standing because we did that; after all, SM corporation was created to have authority over the software.
Judge: ...

QuoteThe whole concept of the CLA was about joint ownership - we still own our work, but we allow SM to use our work and in return for our contribution, they defend it on our behalf as part of defending the overall package.

SM can use the work under the same license terms as anyone else: BSD 3-clause license. We don't need to "allow SM" specifically anything. This isn't SMF's old proprietary license: everyone gets the right to use it freely, to distribute it at will, modify it and reshare it. No need for "permission".
But also: NO entity needs more licensing rights than others, specially as:
- you're talking about a closed-doors corporation of non-contributors, a corporation that is not capable to handle such double-edged rights.
- what is said here is actually a copyright claim over something. There has to be something real, to be an extra-copyright claim, something that cannot be achieved under the development process. And Angel said it: someone has to "make decisions" over development, against their will, from outside the development process and its guidelines. Equals someone to control development.
It's over that bit SM claims copyright, and viceversa: to achieve that, SM management kept claiming copyright.

Quote This is how other, longer established, larger projects work.

This is how none that I know of, of longer established projects work:

Through authority on the software, of those who don't do the work, over those who do.
Not alive projects, anyway.