[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:37:26 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
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.

Quite true. The GPL license is a non-exclusive license it CANNOT speak
to intent for purposes of ownership of a joint work or any other work
for that matter:

17 USC sec. 101 -- A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
but not including a nonexclusive license.

We are not speaking about the intent of the developers concerning the
GPL and "all third parties" (meaning the general public -- remember
"General Public License"?) but the relationship among the *developers*
themselves. The GPL is irrelevant to the intent among the contributing
developers. The developers *actions* carry far for weight than any
*language* about intent.

Alexander is correct. The operative definition of a joint work as
defined in the Copyright Act controls in this case:

17 USC sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more
authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into
inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

BusyBox is undoubtedly a joint work of authorship.

"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"


RJack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]