Mailing-List: contact dev-help@community.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@community.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of francoperruna83@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <008101d0b0ff$4e9e2340$ebda69c0$@acm.org>
References: <008101d0b0ff$4e9e2340$ebda69c0$@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:07:23 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAJih1RROpv4ZuUSt0VYuQoYv=Jbg90OgorE-WuomsmdJQjD88w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Licensing Issue
From: Franco Perruna <francoperruna83@gmail.com>
To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org, dev@community.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b87aa0130505198567ce

--089e0160b87aa0130505198567ce
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 Am 27.06.2015 19:33 schrieb "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>=
:

> Sent off-list by mistake.  (fat-fingered the "To" list)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 09:23
> To: 'Ted Dunning'
> Subject: RE: Licensing Issue
>
> The TL;DR My concern is about any statement that suggests claiming the
> whole work, not just the original aspect of the derivative, as under the
> copyright of the creator of the derivative.  Any attempt to enforce that
> can come to grief.  It is that one aspect of Ted=E2=80=99s statement abou=
t
> =E2=80=9Cclaiming as one=E2=80=99s own=E2=80=9D that I wanted to correct.=
  The making of the
> derivative of a CC0/public-domain work is not the problem, it is about an=
y
> mistaken claim asserted over it.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> ESSAY VERSION
>
> In the case of a CC0 or a public-domain work, the claiming of the
> derivative entire as under one=E2=80=99s own copyright will come to grief=
 in
> litigation.  Not a likely case.  But it has happened in the past that
> usurpers have claimed such copyrights and used it as a threat against eve=
n
> the previous contributors.  The successful perpetrator believed that
> relicensing can happen this way, and the victims did not know otherwise.
>
> It is always good to be clear, especially in a combined work, what is
> subject to a particular claim.  The ASF policies on handling of third-par=
ty
> source codes is a good example.  Even though attribution is not necessari=
ly
> a requirement, it demonstrates acting in good faith and I assume that
> matters a great deal to the Foundation.
>
> My favorite example of this has to do with how copyright is applied to
> republication of =E2=80=9CThe Wizard of Oz=E2=80=9D book, long in the pub=
lic domain.
>
> Print publishers do not always provide such clarity.  And one has no idea
> what private arrangements are made as part of the Rights & Permissions wo=
rk
> that publishers (and film producers) go through.  I do note that many
> combined works provide an enumeration of original sources and sometimes
> =E2=80=9Cused with permission=E2=80=9D notices, despite claiming copyrigh=
t on the
> combination (also similar to what the LICENSE on an Apache Project releas=
e
> is tantamount to, since the ASF does not require copyright on contributio=
ns
> and that is quite deliberate.)
>
> The fundamental notion is a simple statement in the US Copyright code.  M=
y
> own copyright subsists automatically and completely in the that portion o=
f
> a work that (1) is copyrightable subject matter and (2) is my original
> contribution.  And to nothing else in that derivative.
>
> This will not absolve me of infringement of the original source for a
> derivative absent it being public domain or absent my having a license to
> make a derivative (i.e., the open-source case) in accordance with the
> conditions on the license.  I could also have become an owner of the
> copyright by explicit or automatic transfer.
>
> I.e., Sun and Oracle became owners of the OpenOffice.org source code by
> virtue of a CLA that included a non-exclusive transfer of copyright.  The=
y
> did not need that from their own employees because of the work-for-hire
> provision and probably particulars of their employment agreements.  This =
is
> what made Apache OpenOffice possible, because it only required a simple S=
GA
> from Oracle alone.
>
>  -- Dennis, who does not even play a lawyer on cable.
>
> PS: I recently had two technical papers published.  I did not make any
> copyright transfer.  The boilerplate notice on each paper has these
> wordings:
>
>    =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6 Copyright for components of this worked owned by ot=
hers
>     than [Publisher] must be honored. ...
>    "Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).  Publication
>     rights licensed to [Publisher]."
>
> The combined proceedings which incorporates those papers has a notice of
> copyright by [Publisher] in the front matter.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 01:19
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton
> Subject: Re: Licensing Issue
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> There's a difference between making a claim, affixing a notice, etc., and
> it being lawful and the right to having done so being legally defensible.
>
> I suspect this normally doesn't matter and is a trifle unless a conflict
> of some sort drags the usurper into court.  Finding plagiarism, even in a
> derivative, will be quite unfortunate.
>
> I am confused here.
>
> How is making a derivative work of a CC0 licensed work going to ever come
> to grief?
>
>
>
>

--089e0160b87aa0130505198567ce--