how much right do I have on my project, if there are patches by others?
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Mon Jul 9 05:11:20 UTC 2007
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
>> I guess this is the part I don't understand. By analogy, if you make a
>> film adaptation of Lord of the Rings, it's a derivative work of the
>> book, and there are two authors involved. But I don't see how it could
>> be a multi-author work, since Tolkien is dead and thus there couldn't be
>> any collaboration.
> Er, there's nothing about multi-author works that necessitates collaboration.
See below. The key issue I'm still wondering about is:
Must every derivative work (made by a different author than the
original) involve either a joint or collective work?
If not, which ones must be?
> Again, I deny your premise about "collaboration". I have no idea where
> you got that.
>From the Raymond essay, "Campbell vs. Lavery is appellate case law
indicating that collaboratively-written software is a collective rather
than joint work when programmers function in identifiable
author/contributor roles." This (and probably other parts) gave me the
understanding that collective and joint works must involve collaboration.
>> No. My understanding is that joint and collective works are legally
>> created (by definition). But derivative works are not necessarily
> Nowhere did I say that derivative works are necessarily legal, so I'm
> utterly unclear on what you're driving at.
Okay, this is becoming a tangent. I was trying to make a
counter-example, but it really isn't that relevant to the core issue.
More information about the License-discuss