www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RE: NOTICE and original copyright holders
Date Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:29:44 GMT
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.

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.


On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:34 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> On 2016-07-26 23:21 (-0400), "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndament@apache.org]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 17:56
> > > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: NOTICE and original copyright holders
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2016-07-26 19:26 (-0400), "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:21 PM, John D. Ament <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
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 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