[License-discuss] License licenses

[Pamela Chestek]

You would be assuming wrong. /UIRC-GSA Holdings Inc. v. William Blair &
Co., L.L.C./, No. 15-CV-9518, 2017 WL 1163864, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29,
2017) (bond offering documents copyrightable); /Homeowner Options for
Mass. Elders, Inc. v. Brookline Bancorp, Inc./, 754 F. Supp. 2d 201, 209
(D. Mass. 2010) (mortgage forms copyrightable); /Phoenix Renovation
Corp. v. Rodriguez/, 439 F. Supp. 2d 510, 516–17 (E.D. Va. 2006)
(customer contract copyrightable); /Am. Family Life Ins. Co. of Columbus
v. Assurant, Inc./, No. 1:05-CV-1462-BBM, 2006 WL 4017651, at *6–8 (N.D.
Ga. Jan. 11, 2006) (insurance policies copyrightable). To those of us
who write them, they are as creative as code.

Pam

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

On 5/31/2019 6:51 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:


> License texts are functional, and I would have assumed that they are
> not subject to copyright. No doubt we have cases from boilerplate form
> producers as precedent.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019, 13:45 Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com
> <mailto:mccoy.smith at intel.com>> wrote:
>
>     >>-----Original Message-----
>     >>From: License-discuss
>     [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org>] On Behalf
>     Of Richard Fontana
>     >>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:08 AM
>     >>To: masson at opensource.org <mailto:masson at opensource.org>;
>     license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses
>
>     >>For example, for the MIT license:
>
>     >>(1) No submitter -- the MIT license was grandfathered in by the
>     original OSI board
>     >>(2) No nominal copyright owner
>     >>(3) Despite its name, MIT does not appear to have authored the
>     MIT license, based on the historical research I've done --
>     somewhat important because in later times I believe the MIT tech
>     transfer office itself assumed -- based on the name popularized by
>     the OSI itself -- that it had authored the MIT license, and also
>     more recently some of the members of the "open source licenses can
>     be copyright only" camp wish to argue that the MIT license should
>     be read as a "copyright only" license because the present-day MIT
>     tech transfer office supposedly takes that view. MIT is not the
>     license steward of the MIT license -- there is no license steward
>     -- which is separate from but closely related to the authorship
>     and copyright ownership issue.
>
>     Here's some MIT license archeology: 
>     https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license
>
>     Be interesting to see one on BSD too, although I didn't see a
>     similar one using some quick web inquiries.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190531/b06d687b/attachment-0001.html>