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,
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).
>
> Wors
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
David Johnson wrote:
> 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.
Not at all. Copyright subsists solely with the creato
ginal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Is it possible to sue infringers under the GPL?
>
>
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > Ouch! Is that how
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> Not at all. Copyright subsists solely with the creator, unless 1) the work
> is made for hire, or 2) the creator has made an exclusive transfer of
> copyright. The latter *must* be in writing. The FSF insists on such
> copyright transfer for all GNU-off
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:54:12PM -0800, David Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > Not at all. Copyright subsists solely with the creator, unless 1) the work
> > is made for hire, or 2) the creator has made an exclusive transfer of
> > copyright. The latter *must* be
"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 origina
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
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 t
10 matches
Mail list logo
