"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
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 to
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
