New license - please comment

[John Cowan]

Christophe Dupre scripsit:

> The problem (from our perspective) with your proposition is that if the
> 3rd party is too lazy to submit a patch, is run over by a bus, or is
> unavailable, even if we get the code from a 4th party that got it from the
> 3rd party, we're no longer able to re-license the code to commercial
> entities.

Actually, you are able to do so both legally and ethically.  The code is
free as in beer: it has no commercial value.  That being so, the aggrieved
copyright owner is unable to sue you to any purpose.  Actual damages are
nonexistent, and statutory damages are only available to people who bother
to register their copyrights -- and how likely is that, given that they won't
bother to sign over the code?

In any event, given the requirements of the U.S. Copyright Act for a written
instrument (not any particular form, but definitely in writing) for a
transfer of exclusive rights, I very much doubt that your licensing provision
will be effective in doing so.

So drop 2(d) and just use the patches without worrying about it, and if your
bosses have a problem, tell them to drop some money on Larry Rosen and he
will bless this view.

However, IANAL, TINLA.

-- 
He made the Legislature meet at one-horse       John Cowan
tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that     jcowan at reutershealth.com
hardly nobody could get there and most of       http://www.reutershealth.com
the leaders would stay home and let him go      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to work and do things as he pleased.    --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3