license <-> copyright
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Fri Mar 2 16:02:39 UTC 2001
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.
> Next I also wanted to ask if a copyright is
Yes. In the U.S. (and in practice everywhere), such a
transfer must be in writing and signed by the
> 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 <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
More information about the License-discuss