on 6/8/01 1:03 AM, "Brian Goetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The reason why he is only partly correct is because it depends on the
>> copyright on the contributed code, not who made the commits.
>
> Sorry, that's not exactly correct. US copyright law says that a
> copyright is created when the work is created, or a derivative work is
> made, and only is transferred if there is an explicit transfer of
> copyright. To my knowlege, no one made an explicit transfer of
> copyright, except for my statement yesterday that I am transferring
> all my contributions to Doug.
I write a new class, at the top of the code, I place:
* Copyright (c) 1997, 2000 Douglass R. Cutting.
I then check that file into CVS or I post it to the mailing list.
I think that is a pretty clear assignment of copyright.
> Now, you could argue that by not
> amending the copyright notice when creating a derivative work, that
> the intention was to transfer copyright, and you could argue that by
> not identifying it as owned by someone that they had abandoned their
> copyright interest, but it would be just that -- an argument -- that
> you'd have to make to a judge if anyone actually wanted to assert
> their copyright rights in portions of code they created. And I
> suspect you'd have a hard time actually convincing a judge to rule in
> your favor.
Why do you think I would have a hard time? Would it be because I could have
accidentally copy/pasted the wrong copyright to the top of the file and
because I was the one who originally wrote the software I am still entitled
to it? If so, I think I could argue pretty successfully that the code was
indeed contributed...
Imagine that I'm driving down a back country road at 80mph. I am breaking a
speeding law because legally the road is only 50mph max, however, there is
no sign that has specified the speed limit. Given that no back country roads
have 80mph signs, one can arrive at the fact that the speed limit was not
80mph and that I was breaking the law.
I think you can relate that to the fact that because you made the effort to
contribute code to a project where all the files have Doug's copyright on
them, that you knew full well that you were contributing code to Doug's
copyright.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still advocating getting all the committers
permission first.
> Copyright law is pretty complicated; it doesn't work exactly they way
> you think it ought to. Its just that these things are so rarely
> contested in ths community (few contributors to OS projects are likely
> to try and assert any copyright rigthts, so it just doesn't happen.)
I know.
>> The ASF also has a policy that the code must be copyright to the ASF as well
>> for this purpose. That way, it is the ASF which can control the code and
>> distribution of the code.
>
> Out of curiosity, can you show me where it says that? The written
> policy I've seen says something like "can be released under the terms
> of the ASL", which doesn't mean exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately, no. This is based on discussions that have happened on the
ASF members and licensing mailing list over the years. Yes, we (the ASF)
need a licensing FAQ.
Thanks,
-jon
--
"Open source is not available to commercial companies."
-Steve Balmer, CEO Microsoft
<http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html>
_______________________________________________
Lucene-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lucene-dev
