Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Rjack wrote: Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory language in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly overturned on appeal. Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie copyright violation. Don't be so sure over what happens on appeal. Remember Jacobson v. Katzer. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Rjack wrote: You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new* license downstream. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. That's why we're discussing the effect of copyright transfer to begin with. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new* license downstream. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't make it enforceable Hyman. Just because you say it is don't make it so. Um... automatic future contract formation without privity that is controlled by an existing License and its terms. That's just a new copyright law. Dig deep in your rhetorical repertoire and dismiss 17 USC 301(a) and pretend that it's not Congress's unique prerogative to write new copyright law. If you can ignore 17 USC 301(a) why not also just ignore the rest of the Copyright Act? That's why we're discussing the effect of copyright transfer to begin with. 17 USC 205 concerns *existing* non-exclusive licenses and not purported future *new* licenses downstream. Only the owner of copyright can grant a new license -- it's an *exclusive* right. The GPL is harmless (other than SFLC harassment) because it's legally unenforceable. That's why Micro$oft is releasing code under the GPL. The Vole is ROFL at Free Software. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Bye. Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Activist federal judges who ignore Congress's clear statutory language in favor of common sense have a habit of being quickly overturned on appeal. Before the Betamax case, one would have thought that making videotape copies of TV shows was prima facie copyright violation. Don't be so sure over what happens on appeal. Remember Jacobson v. Katzer. How are the facts of Betamax similar to GPL questions? Sony was about contributory infringement. The judiciary's reluctance to expand the protections afforded by the copyright without explicit legislative guidance is a recurring theme.; SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). That doesn't bode well for copyleft does it Hyman? Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Rjack wrote: Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't make it enforceable It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons to whom I distribute, and to persons to whom they further distribute, provided they meet my conditions, the exclusive rights to authorize given to me by 17 USC 106 allow me to do this. 17 USC 301(a) As usual, your irrational fixation on federal preemption of state copyright laws makes no sense. 17 USC 205 concerns *existing* non-exclusive licenses and not purported future *new* licenses downstream. Only the owner of copyright can grant a new license -- it's an *exclusive* right. Yes. That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. That's a good argument for assigning copyrights to an organization like the FSF. The GPL is harmless (other than SFLC harassment) because it's legally unenforceable. Once this is said by a court rather than by a fool on Usenet, I'll get back to you. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen writes: That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the downstream licenses are not new licenses granted at the time of acquisition of copies but prospective licenses granted by the author to everyone who ever might receive a copy. I argue that I can grant you a license now to my work which you may exercise any time in the future should you come into possession of a copy of a copy. Since I, the current copyright owner, am granting you a license now, the possibility that someone else might acquire the copyright between now and the time that you acquire a copy of the work is irrelevant. -- John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article %be9m.42750$ta5.28...@newsfe15.iad, Hyman Rosen hyro...@mail.com wrote: Rjack wrote: You're missing the point. The GPL's goal is to purportedly replicate licenses downstream to all third parties. It is not possible for the holder of a non-exclusive license (a non-owner) to grant a *new* license downstream. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. That license comes from the copyright owner, not the non-exclusive licensee who conveys the work. That's why only the copyright owner has standing to sue over a GPL violation. -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: Just because you write something into a contract's terms doesn't make it enforceable It's not a contract, it's a license. If I want to write a license for my work that says that I give a non-exclusive grant to persons to whom I distribute, and to persons to whom they further distribute, provided they meet my conditions, the exclusive rights to authorize given to me by 17 USC 106 allow me to do this. 17 USC 301(a) As usual, your irrational fixation on federal preemption of state copyright laws makes no sense. 17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it? That what you dismiss it instead of addressing it. Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
In article 87prbsafj6@thumper.dhh.gt.org, John Hasler j...@dhh.gt.org wrote: Hyman Rosen writes: That's why we're discussing the transfer issue. It's possible that a transfer of copyright to a GPL-hostile entity could cause downstream distribution to be disallowed. Well, there is promissory estoppel, of course. I would also argue that the Promissory estoppel only works against those who make promises to you. downstream licenses are not new licenses granted at the time of acquisition of copies but prospective licenses granted by the author to everyone who ever might receive a copy. I argue that I can grant you a license now to my work which you may exercise any time in the future should you come into possession of a copy of a copy. Since I, the current copyright owner, am granting you a license now, the possibility that someone else might acquire the copyright between now and the time that you acquire a copy of the work is irrelevant. What about people who were not born at the time you made this license grant to everyone? Also, note that GPL talks about acceptance of the license. It could be quite reasonably argued that what you are doing is making an OFFER to everyone, which they accept by actually acquiring a copy of your software (or, more likely, by distributing it or modifying it). -- --Tim Smith ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Rjack wrote: 17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it? Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes it easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits the laws involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look for various separate state laws. It doesn't require addressing in the context of the GPL because it has nothing to do with copyright licenses. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Effect of transfer of copyright on free software licenses?
Hyman Rosen wrote: Rjack wrote: 17 USC 301(a) frightens you doesn't it? Huh? Why would it frighten me? Quite the contrary, it makes it easier to talk about copyright because it usually limits the laws involved to only 17 USC, instead of having to look for various separate state laws. It doesn't require addressing in the context of the GPL because it has nothing to do with copyright licenses. Nothing to do with copyright licenses eh? You've gone off the deep end in denial Hyman. Try googling [copyright license court of appeals preempted decided] and read a few of the 1170 hits. Are you in the Obama birthers movement with the wingnuts? Sincerely, Rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
