Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[RJack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > A joint work can be created without any license at all.
> > But when there is a license, the presumption is that the license
> > states the terms.
>
> Take your meds Hyman. The GPL states the terms of non-exclusive
> license. The GPL is irrelevant to co-authors because they have
> exclusive ownership.

Quite true. The GPL license is a non-exclusive license it CANNOT speak
to intent for purposes of ownership of a joint work or any other work
for that matter:

17 USC sec. 101 -- A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment,
mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised
in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect,
but not including a nonexclusive license.

We are not speaking about the intent of the developers concerning the
GPL and "all third parties" (meaning the general public -- remember
"General Public License"?) but the relationship among the *developers*
themselves. The GPL is irrelevant to the intent among the contributing
developers. The developers *actions* carry far for weight than any
*language* about intent.

Alexander is correct. The operative definition of a joint work as
defined in the Copyright Act controls in this case:

17 USC sec. 101 -- A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more
authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into
inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

BusyBox is undoubtedly a joint work of authorship.


"The Captain's scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)