harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject Re: CLA issues Was: java.sql.*
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:44:46 GMT
IANAL. This is not legal advice.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:59:48AM +0100, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >I'll also request everyone tries to ensure that you do not try and
> >represent anything as legal "fact" unless its been thoroughly verified that
> >it is indeed rather certain that what is being said is undisputable. Also,
> >always try and provide as much references as possible.
> >
> The problem "root" lies back in the times when the first laws where 
> written to protect intellectual property. In UK, copyright laws were 
> written, which originally only regulated reproduction and publishing 
> rights, while in France the laws were centered around the "droite 
> d'auteur" or author's right. Later, copyright laws were only adopted in 
> the countries most strongly influenced by the UK, e.g. USA and probably 
> Canada, while most other countries adopted the French idea of generally 
> protecting the author as a "static" owner of his intellecutal property. 
> In Germany, the author's rights are so strong, that they even to some 
> extend apply for works produced by an employee or as part of a paid 
> assignment.
> The issues I'm pointing out are regulated like this in the German 
> "Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte" ("Law on author's 
> rights and related protective rights"):
> §29(1):  Das Urheberrecht ist nicht übertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in 
> Erfüllung einer Verfügung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der 
> Erbauseinandersetzung übertragen.
> The author's right is not transferable, unless it is transfered to an 
> inheritor in connection with the author's death.
> §§ 41 and 42 are regulating the author's "Rückrufsrecht" or "revokation 
> right". §41 is regulating the case, in which an exclusive usage right is 
> not being practised, while §42 is regulating the author's right to 
> revoke a usage right, in case of "gewandelter Überzeugung", however that 
> is to be translated properly to English. "Modified/changed belief or 
> conviction" is a brave attempt. §42(2) regulates that the author's right 
> to exercise his revokation right can not be excepted.
> §34 regulates the transfer of usage rights and sublicensing 
> ("Übertragung von Nutzungsrechten"). Any such transfer must be agreed 
> upon by the author, although it is restricted in which cases he may deny 
> such transfer to take place. At least the way I interpret these 
> regulations, it is not possible for the author to agree to a blanket 
> sublicensing grant, as his rights depends on the exact conditions around 
> the license transfer.
> Regulations on derivative works are spread across several paragraphs 
> (§§14, 23, 39, etc). As in the issue with §42, derivative works may not 
> be produced or published if they are against the author's belief (which 
> may change with time).

Yup, all that sounds pretty familiar, and thanks for writing it up. I
disagree with some of how you map these laws onto what is stated in the
Apache CLA, and I also don't think it necessarily results in the kinds of
problems that you are worrying about.

However, this is getting firmly off-topic for a "development" mailing list.
I'm sure we're boring everyone to death; lets take this discussion
elsewhere :-)



View raw message