Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/8/2010 5:17 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> X may well enter into agreements with B
> regarding W without permission of A.
>
> http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html
>
> "One of the authors can use the entire work as they please without
> seeking permission from the other joint author(s). However, if a single
> author makes a profit through the exploitation of the joint work, then
> the profits will have to be shared with the other joint authors."
>
> http://www.smhllaw.com/2009/08/21/joint-authorship-and-the-copyright-act-what-happens-when-there-are-multiple-contributors-to-a-song/
>
> "The main issue under consideration by the court was whether the song
> was a joint work. This is because authors of a joint work each have the
> right to grant non-exclusive licenses for the work. [2] [2] Note that
> unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, a joint author must
> still account to the other joint author(s) for profits."

But also, <http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html>
    A joint work is defined by the Copyright Act as:

    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.

    Under this definition, both authors must intend that their
    contributions be combined, and this intention must exist at
    the time the contribution is created.

    If there is no "joint work," then the combined efforts of
    multiple authors are considered separate works temporarily
    joined together. ... neither party can use the work of the
    other party without their permission.

So the defendants could try to demonstrate that this is a joint
work (which would involve proving that every author intended to
create a joint work) and that another author has given them
permission to do what they're doing with the work. Sounds more
difficult than complying with the GPL, but then I'm not a crank.