Clarification of GPL

[Gream, Matthew]

> > Each source file is tagged with a header naming him as copyright
> > followed by a GPL header.  For anybody to submit a patch to the
> > original distribution, you agree that he gets copyright of it.  
> 
> In most countries, an assignment of copyright has to be in
> writing and on paper. So an e-mail may well be insufficient.

This is the case in the UK under the CDPA 1988, for both cases of copyright
assignment (s.90) and exclusive licenses (s.92): they must be in writing and
signed. Whether any interpretation, in light of other legal instruments or
case law, recognises digital signatures as having equivalent effect to this
is question better answered elsewhere. 

It would seem to be the case that submitting a patch constitutes granting a
perpetual non-exclusive implied license for the reasonable purposes of
incorporation of the the patch into the project under the terms of the
license of the project - the patch being used to modify the work (the
project) and create a derived work (the new project). Interestingly the
individual portions (i.e. files) of the project could lapse from copyright
(and, therefore, GPL protection), even while copyright subsists in the
entire collection as a whole, unless the project could be claimed to be a
database, and subject to a relatively perpetual protection under a sui
generis database right (which exists in the EU). [1]

If fact, we could probably split chips further: you in fact may not be
modifying and creating the derivative work (i.e. the project) yourself, but
perhaps are are giving the patch to a person who will exercise the acts that
give real effect to the implied license - this may bring in other
complications such as liability of individual who applies the patch, and
additional equitable issues between yourself and that individual. 

Under UK copyright law, moral rights are not applicable to computer
programs, nor are there any allowances for revocation (I believe that there
are under French droit d'auteur) apart from those that would be related to
the terms of the license that are contractual, equitable and estoppel in
nature. It would seem not possible to revoke that original implied license
unless it could be argued that the terms of it were breached (e.g. in the
chain of the appplication of the patch, or changing overall project license,
etc).

Please correct me if I am wrong - I'm an IPR student and may not yet have
the whole picture worked out.

Matthew

[1] Not a real issue given the duration of copyright and the relative youth
of any software, however I find this recent issue with Roland MT-32 and
reverse engineering (cf. http://www.artworxinn.com/alex/history.htm)
interesting as it suggests that some classes of works that failed to achieve
restoration may now be in the public domain in the united states. 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3