Re: license - copyright
Toon Knapen wrote: As I understand it, the copyright holder can define the a license on his work which stipulates what you can do with his work without breaking the copyright. Just so. Next I also wanted to ask if a copyright is transferable. Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a transfer must be in writing and signed by the developer. For instance : is it best that all developers in an open-source project transfer their copyright to the project manager ? That is a matter of opinion. Only the copyright holder can sue for infringement, so centralizing it in one place can be useful in case of a lawsuit. The FSF holds the copyright on GNU works for that reason. Finally I also wanted to ask why a copyright notice always includes dates (years). Do these indicate the year the 'work' was released to the public ? No, the date that it was first fixed in a tangible medium such as paper, canvas, stone, or a hard disk. The date is not required, but makes the way of the infringer hard -- he cannot claim that he didn't know the work was still in copyright. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
RE: license - copyright
From: John Cowan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a transfer must be in writing and signed by the developer. [DJW:] The Free Software Foundations assignment form, quoted recently, appears to be in the form of a contract. It includes a token payment to establish a "consideration". *** IANAL *** No, the date that it was first fixed in a tangible medium such as paper, canvas, stone, or a hard disk. The date is not required, but makes the way of the infringer hard -- he cannot claim that he didn't know the work was still in copyright. [DJW:] I'd heard that it was the year of first publication; international copyright law gives only limited protection to unpublished works. *** IANAL *** -- [DJW:] -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
RE: license - copyright
Toon, If you are interested in a comprehensive discussion of U.S. copyright law, licensing in general, and free/ open-source software licensing specifically, you can check out an article I recently published on these subjects at: http://www.vjolt.net/vol5/issue3/v5i3a11-Ravicher.html Please feel free to comment or criticize. I'll start by saying that you shouldn't expect any concrete answers with respect to free/ open-source software licensing in the United States because no court has ruled on all of the issues involved. --Dan Dan Ravicher Brobeck 1633 Broadway, 47th Fl. NY, NY 10019 p. 212.315.8032 f. 212.586.7878 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.brobeck.com/ -Original Message- From: Toon Knapen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:18 AM To: license Subject: license - copyright I'm new to this ml, so maybe the question is alreay answered (but I found no archive) So, can someone point me to a website or explain the relation between a sofware license and a copyright. As I understand it, the copyright holder can define the a license on his work which stipulates what you can do with his work without breaking the copyright. Next I also wanted to ask if a copyright is transferable. For instance : is it best that all developers in an open-source project transfer their copyright to the project manager ? Finally I also wanted to ask why a copyright notice always includes dates (years). Do these indicate the year the 'work' was released to the public ? Thanks, toon -- Toon Knapen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Si-Lab Albert I laan 113 tel:+32/2/3060451 B-1800 Vilvoorde, Belgium mobile: +32/486/149048 === This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BROBECK PHLEGER HARRISON LLP http://www.brobeck.com
Re: license - copyright
John Cowan wrote: Toon Knapen wrote: As I understand it, the copyright holder can define the a license on his work which stipulates what you can do with his work without breaking the copyright. Just so. Next I also wanted to ask if a copyright is transferable. Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a transfer must be in writing and signed by the developer. unless, I assume, one gives the copyright to the other person from the moment the 'work' is created. Since in this case the copyright is never owned by the person who created the 'work'(is that legal/possible), there is never a transfer and thus no administration is necessary For instance : is it best that all developers in an open-source project transfer their copyright to the project manager ? That is a matter of opinion. Only the copyright holder can sue for infringement, so centralizing it in one place can be useful in case of a lawsuit. The FSF holds the copyright on GNU works for that reason. Do you mean that, if you release your work under the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically the copyright owner ? This would be the inverse of my first question asking/ saying that the copyright holder can define the license. Does thus the GPL license define the copyright holder ? Toon
RE: license - copyright
From: Toon Knapen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Do you mean that, if you release your work under the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically the copyright owner ? [DJW:] Gnu is not the same as GPLed. Gnu is things like GCC, not things like the Linux kernel. As I already mentioned, the FSF have a specific form for assigning copyright. -- --- DISCLAIMER - Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Re: license - copyright
Toon Knapen wrote: John Cowan wrote: Toon Knapen wrote: snip For instance : is it best that all developers in an open-source project transfer their copyright to the project manager ? That is a matter of opinion. Only the copyright holder can sue for infringement, so centralizing it in one place can be useful in case of a lawsuit. The FSF holds the copyright on GNU works for that reason. Do you mean that, if you release your work under the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically the copyright owner ? No. "GNU works" in this context does not mean "works licensed under the GPL", it means works whose development has been sponsored and supported by the Free Software Foundation as part of its GNU project. (Examples include GNU Emacs, GCC, etc.) For such works the FSF has traditionally asked contributors to assign copyright on their contributions to the FSF; these assignments are done through separate written agreements. This would be the inverse of my first question asking/ saying that the copyright holder can define the license. Does thus the GPL license define the copyright holder ? No. Anyone who holds valid copyright to a software product can release that product under the GPL. Use of the GPL does not affect their status as copyright holder. Frank -- Frank Heckerwork: http://www.collab.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]home: http://www.hecker.org/
Re: license - copyright
Toon Knapen wrote: unless, I assume, one gives the copyright to the other person from the moment the 'work' is created. Since in this case the copyright is never owned by the person who created the 'work'(is that legal/possible), there is never a transfer and thus no administration is necessary No, it's still necessary unless the creator is your employee and the work is done in the scope of his employment. That is a matter of opinion. Only the copyright holder can sue for infringement, so centralizing it in one place can be useful in case of a lawsuit. The FSF holds the copyright on GNU works for that reason. Do you mean that, if you release your work under the GPL license that the FSF becomes automatically the copyright owner ? No, no, a thousand times no! I said "GNU works", not "works released under the GNU GPL". The former are works that make up the GNU operating system as published by the FSF. Anyone can release work under the GNU GPL, but that does not make the work part of the GNU operating system. This would be the inverse of my first question asking/ saying that the copyright holder can define the license. Does thus the GPL license define the copyright holder ? No. National law and international treaties define the copyright holder as either the creator, or someone holding by a transfer from the creator, or the heir of the creator. There are technical differences in some countries: in France, e.g. (IANAFL), the copyright as such cannot be transferred, but the *droit d'exploitation* may be, which has the same effect. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Re: license - copyright
pat perf wrote: Listen, I would like to inform you that WE ARE ONLY STUDENTS! We don't know where you can find copyright's informations...if you want more information, try to enter COPYRIGHT IN YAHOO! or another Motor Site. Thanks for your comprehension. P.S: please stop E-Mailling ME THank you Sincerly CPIS I'm sorry if my question were off topic. I only asked these question as to get some more information such that I'm able to choose a license (and legal stuff) that best fits my open-source developments. As I had understood, this ml is exactly targeted at discussing open-source licenses. I'm sorry if I was wrong. toon From: Toon Knapen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: license [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: license - copyright Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:18:05 +0100 I'm new to this ml, so maybe the question is alreay answered (but I found no archive) So, can someone point me to a website or explain the relation between a sofware license and a copyright. As I understand it, the copyright holder can define the a license on his work which stipulates what you can do with his work without breaking the copyright. Next I also wanted to ask if a copyright is transferable. For instance : is it best that all developers in an open-source project transfer their copyright to the project manager ? Finally I also wanted to ask why a copyright notice always includes dates (years). Do these indicate the year the 'work' was released to the public ? Thanks, toon -- Toon Knapen[EMAIL PROTECTED] Si-Lab Albert I laan 113 tel:+32/2/3060451 B-1800 Vilvoorde, Belgium mobile: +32/486/149048 _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- Toon Knapen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Si-Lab Albert I laan 113 tel:+32/2/3060451 B-1800 Vilvoorde, Belgium mobile: +32/486/149048
Re: license - copyright
On Friday March 02 2001 08:40 pm, Toon Knapen wrote: I'm sorry if my question were off topic. I only asked these question as to get some more information such that I'm able to choose a license (and legal stuff) that best fits my open-source developments. This is indeed the appropriate list to discuss copyrights, licenses, and all that rot, so long as it pertains to Open Source. I don't know exactly who pat perf is, but I can assure you that he or she is not the list adminstrator. I can only assume that this pat person is receiving the mailing list unwillingly. Such things happen sometimes. Please keep asking your questions here. They are welcome. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: license - copyright
This is not legal advice, no attorney-client relationship is hereby established, etc. etc. - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Toon Knapen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "license" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:48 PM Subject: Re: license - copyright Toon Knapen wrote: unless, I assume, one gives the copyright to the other person from the moment the 'work' is created. Since in this case the copyright is never owned by the person who created the 'work'(is that legal/possible), there is never a transfer and thus no administration is necessary No, it's still necessary unless the creator is your employee and the work is done in the scope of his employment. Just as a supplement - the original author and owner can also include other parties besides an employer, namely a person who commissions a particular work - see, e.g., the definition of "works made for hire" in the U.S. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#101
