[License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need comments

[Lawrence Rosen]

Pamela Chestek wrote:

> To clarify, a joint owner could authorize use of the work under a license
that is different from the original license, but that doesn't effect a
change of the license altogether. The original license, from the other joint
author(s), remains, so what you really would have is a dual-licensed work -
admittedly still suboptimal, but the joint author couldn't remove the open
source license altogether. And John points out in principle a patch could
create a joint work, but I expect it would take a much more substantial
contribution than that. I don't think someone can realistically come along
and hijack a project by submitting a few minor changes.

 

 

Pam is right.

 

Although, as a practical matter for commercial companies, this can become a
nightmare scenario. For example, in the patent context, if there are
multiple inventors then each of them can frustrate the attempts of the other
inventors to commercialize the patent by offering the patent at a lower
price. Why would someone license intellectual property if he believes he can
get it for less while the joint inventors argue amongst themselves. :-)

 

Whether or not this scenario is good for FOSS or for commercial sponsors of
FOSS is, I presume, fact specific. But from my perspective, a joint creation
scenario is very risky without a written contract to refer to.

 

/Larry

 

 

From: Chestek Pamela [mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:28 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need
comments

 

 

On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:49 PM, John Cowan wrote:

 

Mike Milinkovich scripsit:



So you are asserting that by getting a single patch accepted into the Linux

kernel that I can, under US copyright law, re-license the entire work? As

long as I share any proceeds equally with all other copyright holders of

course.


In principle.  However, a judge might well decide that that was not enough
to make you a joint author.  Judges aren't computers.

 

To clarify, a joint owner could authorize use of the work under a license
that is different from the original license, but that doesn't effect a
change of the license altogether. The original license, from the other joint
author(s), remains, so what you really would have is a dual-licensed work -
admittedly still suboptimal, but the joint author couldn't remove the open
source license altogether. And John points out in principle a patch could
create a joint work, but I expect it would take a much more substantial
contribution than that. I don't think someone can realistically come along
and hijack a project by submitting a few minor changes.

 

Pam 

 

Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.

Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com

www.chesteklegal.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130722/8a6db2a7/attachment.html>