Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > A joint work can be created without any license at all.
> 
> But when there is a license, the presumption is
> that the license states the terms.

Take your meds Hyman. The GPL states the terms of non-exclusive license.
The GPL is irrelevant to co-authors because they have exclusive
ownership.

> 
>  > The GPL doesn't have to say anything about joint works
>  > (just like in the case of no license at all) for a joint
>  > work created that is available to non-coauthors under the
>  > GPL. Coauthors don't need any non-exclusive license --
>  > they have exclusive ownership!!!
> 
> They cannot be co-authors except as they accept the GPL,
> because they otherwise have no permission to create a
> derivative work from GPL-licensed code.

Tou ease your mind a bit, think of a case when a contribution to the
joint work isn't a derivative work of pre-existing contributions to that
joint work.

Next think about the fact that there is nothing in the GPL saying that
derivative works can't be joined into joint works (and that would be
unenforceable anyway). 

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)