how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sat Jul 7 08:54:15 UTC 2007
Rick Moen wrote:
> 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'm not sure joint and collective are the only two relevant possibilities.
> > 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
This is my citation on Apache's /view/ of copyright law. Obviously,
their CLA does not change the law, but it seems to indicate that Eric
and Catherine's interpretation is not universally shared.
More information about the License-discuss