> > Each source file is tagged with a header naming him as copyright > > followed by a GPL header. For anybody to submit a patch to the > > original distribution, you agree that he gets copyright of it. > > In most countries, an assignment of copyright has to be in > writing and on paper. So an e-mail may well be insufficient.
This is the case in the UK under the CDPA 1988, for both cases of copyright assignment (s.90) and exclusive licenses (s.92): they must be in writing and signed. Whether any interpretation, in light of other legal instruments or case law, recognises digital signatures as having equivalent effect to this is question better answered elsewhere. It would seem to be the case that submitting a patch constitutes granting a perpetual non-exclusive implied license for the reasonable purposes of incorporation of the the patch into the project under the terms of the license of the project - the patch being used to modify the work (the project) and create a derived work (the new project). Interestingly the individual portions (i.e. files) of the project could lapse from copyright (and, therefore, GPL protection), even while copyright subsists in the entire collection as a whole, unless the project could be claimed to be a database, and subject to a relatively perpetual protection under a sui generis database right (which exists in the EU). [1] If fact, we could probably split chips further: you in fact may not be modifying and creating the derivative work (i.e. the project) yourself, but perhaps are are giving the patch to a person who will exercise the acts that give real effect to the implied license - this may bring in other complications such as liability of individual who applies the patch, and additional equitable issues between yourself and that individual. Under UK copyright law, moral rights are not applicable to computer programs, nor are there any allowances for revocation (I believe that there are under French droit d'auteur) apart from those that would be related to the terms of the license that are contractual, equitable and estoppel in nature. It would seem not possible to revoke that original implied license unless it could be argued that the terms of it were breached (e.g. in the chain of the appplication of the patch, or changing overall project license, etc). Please correct me if I am wrong - I'm an IPR student and may not yet have the whole picture worked out. Matthew [1] Not a real issue given the duration of copyright and the relative youth of any software, however I find this recent issue with Roland MT-32 and reverse engineering (cf. http://www.artworxinn.com/alex/history.htm) interesting as it suggests that some classes of works that failed to achieve restoration may now be in the public domain in the united states. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3