how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?

[Matthew Flaschen]

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
>   (http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt)

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.

Matthew Flaschen