gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal


From: rjack
Subject: Re: Red Hat pays $800,000 + costs for a patent deal
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:02:53 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)

Linonut wrote:

Construe.

Sounds to me like there's no contradiction between Groklaw and the
Federal court, until somebody becomes bad.

In any case, that document also says this:

   The rights comprised in a copyright may be subdivided and
   transferred. 17 U.S.C. 201(d)(2) ("Any of the exclusive rights
   comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of
   the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as
   provided by clause (1) and owned separately."). In other words,
   a copyright holder may transfer the right to duplicate to one
   person, the right to distribute to another, and the right to
   produce derivative works to yet another. See ITOFCA Inc. v.
   MegaTrans Logistics, Inc., 322 F.3d 928, 929-30 (7th Cir.2003)
   ("Making and selling are distinct rights and you can assign one
without the other.").
Thanks for pointing me to that succinct validation of the methodology of
the GPL.


Uhhhh... 17 USC 201(d) begins:

"Transfer of ownership.
    (1)
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
    (2)
Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106 [17 USC 106], may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."

Are you seriously suggesting that use of the GPL transfers ownership of the copyrights rights? Methinks more than the sky is falling.

Sincerely,
Rjack

“The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling”, Sunday, December 14 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST --- Pamela Jones at Groklaw




reply via email to

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