how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
rick at linuxmafia.com
Sat Jul 7 07:58:48 UTC 2007
Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> You said "It turns out that -- as a matter of law, as opposed to ethical
> norms -- the cited community view is pure bullshit." I merely mean to
> point out that it is not settled who is correct, as a matter of law.
Actually, I think that's amply clear. As already pointed out, 17 USC
201 provides otherwise concerning collective works -- and the
contributor of a patch would have even _less_ say if the package as a
whole were judged a joint work.
> I am indeed the one and only Matthew Flaschen
> <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>. Exactly what comment are you referring to?
Your own immediately preceding message.
> It turns out that -- as a matter of law, as opposed to ethical norms --
> the cited community view is pure bullshit.
It's far from certain that they are correct about this. Others, such as
the Apache project, would seem to disagree. They have clearly defined
coauthors, but still require broad and explicit contributor licenses
(http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt) and take the view that only
the foundation (not the coauthors) can relicense.
Cheers, To you, this thought Alot
Rick Moen I gently allot: Isnot
rick at linuxmafia.com Aword.
More information about the License-discuss