Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[RJack]

chrisv wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> > On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming
> > > derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that
> > > contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright
> > > as they see fit and should use the GPL and only the GPL instead.
> > This is generally correct. Since those creators of derivative works
> > do not have the right to create them without permission of the
> > rights holders, caviling at the restrictions is pointless. The
> > restrictions are known, and if they are not acceptable to the 
> > author who wishes to create a derivative work, then he should not 
> > create that work.
>
> Man, you have the patience of a saint, dealing with these 
> mental-midget trolling assholes "Alexander Terekhov" and "RJack".
>
> The "Alexander" POS actually claims that someone becomes a co-author 
> of something when they "agree and intend to do so", without needing 
> the agreement of the original author(s)

If the "original authors" accept a developer's code to be integrated
into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new
contributor as a joint author. This acceptance is an *affirmative act*
by the original developers. See the BusyBox site
http://busybox.net/developer.html  and "Contributing":

"If you're approved for an account, you'll need to send an email from
your preferred contact email address with the username you'd like to use
when committing changes to GIT, and attach a public ssh key to access
your account with."

It is these actions under "Contributing" that make BusyBox a jointly
owned work and has nothing to do with intent of the GPL.


"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)