<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Pamela Chestek wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Pam is right.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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. :-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Chestek Pamela [mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 20, 2013 12:28 PM<br><b>To:</b> license-discuss@opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need comments<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:49 PM, John Cowan wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Mike Milinkovich scripsit:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So you are asserting that by getting a single patch accepted into the Linux<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>kernel that I can, under US copyright law, re-license the entire work? As<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>long as I share any proceeds equally with all other copyright holders of<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>course.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>In principle. However, a judge might well decide that that was not enough<br>to make you a joint author. Judges aren't computers.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Pam <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Pamela S. Chestek, Esq.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chestek Legal<br>PO Box 2492<br>Raleigh, NC 27602<br>919-800-8033<br><a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>