www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: RE: NOTICE and original copyright holders
Date Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:13:04 GMT
The complication is that public domain, as ownership of copyright of a
work, simply is not recognized in many jurisdictions. So to the extent than
an author offers the AL or other license to a work, and notes that parts
are in the public domain (where recognized), both bases may be covered.

On Jul 27, 2016 5:07 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 09:30
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: RE: NOTICE and original copyright holders
> >
> >
> > The fact that there is no transfer of copyright is very important, from
> > what I understand, because in many jurisdictions such a complete
> > transfer is not even legally possible. The problem is that certain of
> > the authors rights (often called "moral rights") are considered
> > inalienable.
> >
> > This is essentially the problem that the CC0 attempts to solve. Even
> > donating your works into the public domain is difficult.
> >
> > In general, granting a license is something that is pretty much
> > universally recognized, especially with some sort of compensation.
> > Giving away your intellectual property is not.
> [orcmid]
>
> In the US one can create a quit-claim and even register it with the US
> Copyright Office.  It does not transfer the copyright but basically agrees
> not to pursue infringements of the exclusive rights of the copyright
> holder.  It does not mean anyone else can claim copyright on it, just as
> one cannot usurp public-domain works.
>
> The CC0 seems to have the effect of a quit-claim declaration, without
> registering it anywhere.  It is simply affixed to the work.  (And there are
> important caveats in the description.)
>
> >
> > This is a situation that I find frustrating, but I can live with it as
> > long as the CC0 and Apache licenses let me get the effect I want in
> > giving things away.
> [orcmid]
>
> Yes. Me too.
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:34 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> > <mailto:johndament@apache.org> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >       Dennis,
> >
> >       On 2016-07-26 23:21 (-0400), "Dennis E. Hamilton"
> > <dennis.hamilton@acm.org <mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org> > wrote:
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > > -----Original Message-----
> >       > > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndament@apache.org
> > <mailto:johndament@apache.org> ]
> >       > > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 17:56
> >       > > To: legal-discuss@apache.org <mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>
> >       > > Subject: Re: NOTICE and original copyright holders
> >       > >
> >       > >
> >       > >
> >       > > On 2016-07-26 19:26 (-0400), "Roy T. Fielding"
> > <fielding@gbiv.com <mailto:fielding@gbiv.com> >
> >       > > wrote:
> >       > > > > On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:21 PM, John D. Ament
> > <johndament@apache.org <mailto:johndament@apache.org> >
> >       > > wrote:
> >       > > > >
> >       > > > > All,
> >       > > > >
> >       > > > > I'm trying to figure out something that's thrown me off.
> > In what
> >       > > cases would it be expected that the NOTICE file includes the
> > original
> >       > > copyright claims after an SGA has been executed?
> >       > > > >
> >       > > > > This is in reference to http://www.apache.org/legal/src-
> >       > > headers.html#notice <http://www.apache.org/legal/src-
> >       > > headers.html#notice> which includes "The NOTICE file may also
> > include
> >       > > copyright notices moved from source files submitted to the
> > ASF."
> >       > > >
> >       > > > When the donation is made under condition that some form of
> > copyright
> >       > > notice
> >       > > > remain in the work, or it is placed there a part of the
> > donation.  Did
> >       > > you follow the link?
> >       > >
> >       > > This seems to contradict our SGA, I can't find a reference to
> > retained
> >       > > copyright, which I'm reading at [1].  I'm only seeing that the
> > copyright
> >       > > is granted to the ASF.
> >       > >
> >       > [orcmid]
> >       >
> >       > This is a misunderstanding.  The statement is
> >       >
> >       >    "Licensor hereby grants to the foundation:
> >       >
> >       >    ") a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, irrevocable
> >       >     copyright license to ... ."
> >       >
> >       > There is *no* transfer of copyright.  There is a copyright
> > *license* (and then patent license).
> >
> >       This is the part that wasn't clicking for me.  Thank you for
> > pointing it out.  It also clarifies one other point that I had struggled
> > with in the past, basically that a licensor could continue to maintain
> > the codebase pre-ASF donation with all original claims in tact.  If they
> > were to bring in changes from the donation, thats where things wouldn't
> > be equal.
> >
> >       >
> >       > There is no statement about retention of copyright because there
> > is no transfer of copyright.
> >       >
> >       > The copyright the Licensor has is retained.  And the Licensor can
> > make more licenses to others.
> >       >
> >       > There are certain exclusive rights that a copyright holder has
> > with regard to works in which their copyright subsists.  The license
> > grants the party to whom a license is granted the right to also exercise
> > some of those rights, as detailed in the license.  That does not
> > transfer any copyright and the recipient can't change the copyright that
> > exists in the licensed work(s).
> >       >
> >       > Side note #1: The Licensor need not be the copyright holder.  The
> > Licensor could have a valid license that allows it to make the grant to
> > others.
> >       >
> >       > Side note #2: This has nothing to do with Apache License v2.  In
> > nowhere in SGAs, CCLAs, and ICLAs is Apache License v2 mentioned.
> > However, the ability of the ASF to distribute under an ALv2 license is
> > something those licenses all permit, but do not require.  (See Side note
> > #1 [;<).
> >       >
> >       > > Now, assuming what you're saying is accurate (I'm not saying
> > its not),
> >       > > what happens if the donator or the PMC fails to add the proper
> > NOTICE
> >       > > when the import is first made? Is it OK to simply add it at a
> > later
> >       > > point?
> >       > >
> >       > >
> >       > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
> >       > >
> >       > > >
> >       > > > ....Roy
> >       > > >
> >       > > >
> >       > >
> >       > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> >       > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
> >       > > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> >       > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
> >       > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> >       >
> >       >
> >
> >       -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >       To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
> >       For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> > <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message