Simple Public License, Please Review

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Justin,

I hadn't heard from you so I thought you had declined my offer. My mistake.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Wells [mailto:justin at semiotek.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 5:31 PM
> To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Simple Public License, Please Review
> 
> 
> Rod I really appreciate that you are taking some time to review this. 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 06:42:57AM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> > Be careful. Free software is not exactly public domain, which is what I
> > think you have in mind. Only the copyright holder can go into court to
> > enforce the copyright. Hence, it is not just better, but necessary, to
> > transfer copyright to some entity, if you want to avoid the vanishing
> > copyright holder problem.
> 
> My clause reads like this:
> 
>   For the sole purpose of taking action against an infringer of
>   our copyrights, including actions seeking remedies, compensation,
>   or the recovery of damages, anyone engaged in the lawful distribution
>   of our software shall be considered a beneficial owner of the
>   rights to copy and distribute it, and therefore has the authority
>   to pursue such actions.
> 
> The goal is to put distributors into a position where they can go to 
> court as the copyright holder, but not give them enough copyright 
> ownership to be able to change the license. 
> 
> I copied the notion of "beneficial owner" from the US copyright act, 
> where it uses that phrase to give television broadcasters the right
> to enforce copyright licenses they have paid for in their broadcast 
> area. 
> 
> If this language doesn't accomplish that, is there something else I 
> could do instead? Maybe I could declare that they are agents of the 
> copyright holder when acting in this capacity or some such. 
> 
> Justin
> 
>