Concurrent Licenses?

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Well, it may depend on the terms of the license. Copyright law sets the
default rules. A license may change those rules, if the parties so agree.
There is the concept of  moral rights that is alive and well in UK copyright
law, but not as well-developed in the U.S. Moral rights grant exclusive
interests to the author of a work even where the author is NOT the copyright
holder. I point this out to recognize there are exceptions to the point we
are discussing (this particular exception is thought to apply to Visual
works or art, so it is not relevant to most computer programs).

Regarding the film example, you are correct. A has EXCLUSIVE copyright so
only A may bring suit. In the non-open source code world, "B" has been paid
for his work, hopefully, well-paid. If should consider how disruptive it
would be if multiple parties could stand in "A's" shoes for an infringement
of one work, which is not a collective work, merely because the work was
updated by others. This would not only disable the meaningful copyright
reference  to original authorship, but could harm the development of some
complex open source projects with repeated defensive code-forks. Someone has
to have the ultimate (read, exclusive) control over the project in order to
adequately protect it. Hence, copyleft keeps that control from seeping into
the hands of non-free software developers.

For those who are not in favor of FSF-styled GPLs, you can use weak
copylefts, and, therefore, avoid the derivative work "problem" entirely.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at locke.ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
> To: rod at cyberspaces.org
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Concurrent Licenses?
>
>
> Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
>
> > I have no expertise on UK law so I will accept your
> interpretation. In the
> > US, copyright holders retain the EXCLUSIVE right to control
> reproductions,
> > performances, displays, distribution AND the creation of
> derivative works.
>
> I think the point being discussed is: Who has the right to control
> the reporductions, performances, displays and distribution OF
> derivative works that are made under license from the original creator:
> the original creator (A), or the creator of the derivative work (B)?
> In particular, if B has any rights as against the world, does he
> also have rights against A?
>
> If I write a novel, and you make it into a film under license from
> me, I can't make copies of the film without a cross-license from you, no?
> If the film;s copyright is infringed, only you can sue, no?
>
> --
> John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
>        I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
>