Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." wrote: Well, to be precise, one of you is confusing the common sense meaning of "creator" with the meaning of that term under copyright law. Creation of a patch does not make you a creator under copyright. It seems to me that that depends on the substantial originality of the patch. Some patches are almost as big as the software being patched, and introduce large amounts of new function. A one-line patch clearly is of no significance, since there is no reasonable form/content division, and furthermore it's de minimis. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
David Johnson wrote: If someone sends me a patch with no notice of copyright in the patch, but an attached email that says "here's a fix for your code", who does it belong to? I assume that I can use it in my own code as if it were mine, no questions asked. IANAL, but I think you can treat that as a constructive license, since a non-exclusive copyright license need not be in writing. Of course, adding the patcher's name to the contributors list is a matter of civility, not law. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote: IANAL, but I think you can treat that as a constructive license, since a non-exclusive copyright license need not be in writing. Of course, adding the patcher's name to the contributors list is a matter of civility, not law. Of course I didn't mean to be uncivil :-) I was thinking more on terms of having a free software package with some contributed patches within, then deciding to release a version of it under a different license. I wondered if such a scenario would land me in court or not. Of course, the prudent thing would be to acquire rights and/or permission from the contributor. -- David Johnson... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
A big problem with the GPL, and other OSS licenses, is that very few people have standing to press a complaint. If someone violate's a GPL license, only the author of the software has the right to press the complaint (or so I think, and I am not a lawyer). Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? This doesn't bode well for OSS projects that are developed by someone who has since vanished, and are now maintained by someone else. In my SPL, which I am *still* working on, I have this clause: For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation, or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority to pursue such actions. The goal here is to give someone like Red Hat the standing to press a claim against a violator, even if the original author has vanished from the face of the earth. The copyright act (in the US) has some similar language granting television broadcasters "beneficial owner" status so they can go after pirates in their broadcast area, without having to track down the copyright owners. Any comments? Is this viable? Does it give the distributor enough power to subvert the license? Does it give them enough standing to go after an infringer in court? The full text of the current SPL is here, and I would appreciate other comments on it: http://shimari.com/SPL/ But at the moment I am particularly interested in this beneficial owner idea. Justin
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
Justin Wells writes: A big problem with the GPL, and other OSS licenses, is that very few people have standing to press a complaint. If someone violate's a GPL license, only the author of the software has the right to press the complaint (or so I think, and I am not a lawyer). Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? I'm just curious why you need a majority. In the absence of some agreement between developers about the disposition of the copyright, isn't a GPLed work normally copyrighted in part by each of its contributors? In my SPL, which I am *still* working on, I have this clause: For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation, or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority to pursue such actions. The goal here is to give someone like Red Hat the standing to press a claim against a violator, even if the original author has vanished from the face of the earth. The copyright act (in the US) has some similar language granting television broadcasters "beneficial owner" status so they can go after pirates in their broadcast area, without having to track down the copyright owners. Isn't that ownership granted by law? If it weren't granted by law, could you create such a thing simply by publishing that statement in a license? -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000, Seth David Schoen wrote: Worse, if there are multiple authors, you probably need a majority of them present to press the complaint. How do you find out who the authors of an OSS project are, and how on earth would you track down a majority of them? I'm just curious why you need a majority. In the absence of some agreement between developers about the disposition of the copyright, isn't a GPLed work normally copyrighted in part by each of its contributors? Ouch! Is that how people view Open Source modifications? It's a wonder development even occurs. As I see it, if you submit a patch to my application, and say that is what it is, that patch falls under my copyright. You still have full rights to it outside of my application, but once it's included with your permission, the whole is still mine. But I can see where the opposite viewpoint is also valid. So, are contributors automatically copyright holders? -- David Johnson... _ http://www.meer.net/~arandir/
