IANAL. This is not legal advice. On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:59:48AM +0100, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote: > Leo Simons wrote: > > >I'll also request everyone tries to ensure that you do not try and > >represent anything as legal "fact" unless its been thoroughly verified that > >it is indeed rather certain that what is being said is undisputable. Also, > >always try and provide as much references as possible. > > > The problem "root" lies back in the times when the first laws where > written to protect intellectual property. In UK, copyright laws were > written, which originally only regulated reproduction and publishing > rights, while in France the laws were centered around the "droite > d'auteur" or author's right. Later, copyright laws were only adopted in > the countries most strongly influenced by the UK, e.g. USA and probably > Canada, while most other countries adopted the French idea of generally > protecting the author as a "static" owner of his intellecutal property. > In Germany, the author's rights are so strong, that they even to some > extend apply for works produced by an employee or as part of a paid > assignment. > > The issues I'm pointing out are regulated like this in the German > "Gesetz ?ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte" ("Law on author's > rights and related protective rights"): > > ?29(1): Das Urheberrecht ist nicht ?bertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in > Erf?llung einer Verf?gung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der > Erbauseinandersetzung ?bertragen. > > The author's right is not transferable, unless it is transfered to an > inheritor in connection with the author's death. > > ?? 41 and 42 are regulating the author's "R?ckrufsrecht" or "revokation > right". ?41 is regulating the case, in which an exclusive usage right is > not being practised, while ?42 is regulating the author's right to > revoke a usage right, in case of "gewandelter ?berzeugung", however that > is to be translated properly to English. "Modified/changed belief or > conviction" is a brave attempt. ?42(2) regulates that the author's right > to exercise his revokation right can not be excepted. > > ?34 regulates the transfer of usage rights and sublicensing > ("?bertragung von Nutzungsrechten"). Any such transfer must be agreed > upon by the author, although it is restricted in which cases he may deny > such transfer to take place. At least the way I interpret these > regulations, it is not possible for the author to agree to a blanket > sublicensing grant, as his rights depends on the exact conditions around > the license transfer. > > Regulations on derivative works are spread across several paragraphs > (??14, 23, 39, etc). As in the issue with ?42, derivative works may not > be produced or published if they are against the author's belief (which > may change with time).
Yup, all that sounds pretty familiar, and thanks for writing it up. I disagree with some of how you map these laws onto what is stated in the Apache CLA, and I also don't think it necessarily results in the kinds of problems that you are worrying about. However, this is getting firmly off-topic for a "development" mailing list. I'm sure we're boring everyone to death; lets take this discussion elsewhere :-) cheers, Leo