|
From: | RJack |
Subject: | Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation |
Date: | Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:53:09 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
chrisv wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the GPL and only the GPL instead.This is generally correct. Since those creators of derivative works do not have the right to create them without permission of the rights holders, caviling at the restrictions is pointless. Therestrictions are known, and if they are not acceptable to the author who wishes to create a derivative work, then he should not create that work.Man, you have the patience of a saint, dealing with these mental-midget trolling assholes "Alexander Terekhov" and "RJack".The "Alexander" POS actually claims that someone becomes a co-author of something when they "agree and intend to do so", without needing the agreement of the original author(s)
If the "original authors" accept a developer's code to be integrated into the BusyBox project they show their intent to include that new contributor as a joint author. This acceptance is an *affirmative act* by the original developers. See the BusyBox site http://busybox.net/developer.html and "Contributing": "If you're approved for an account, you'll need to send an email from your preferred contact email address with the username you'd like to use when committing changes to GIT, and attach a public ssh key to access your account with." It is these actions under "Contributing" that make BusyBox a jointly owned work and has nothing to do with intent of the GPL. "The Captain's scared them out of the water!" http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Sincerely, RJack :)
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |