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

[rjack]

Linonut wrote:
> * rjack peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> > Linonut wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> . . .

> Why did you ignore the "subdivided" or "in part" part?

I ignored the "subdivided" or "in part" part because the GPL is a
non-exclusive copyright license.

17 USC sec. 101 Definitions states:

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.

See the "but not including a nonexclusive license" phrase?

17 USC sec. 201(d) is subtitled "Transfer of ownership" and thus is 
utterly inapplicable to the nonexclusive GPL.

Savvy now Kemo Sabay?

Sincerely,
Rjack

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our 
inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the 
state of facts and evidence." -- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the 
Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770