Re: [Bug-cssc] Fwd: GNU CSSC 1.3.1 is released

[James Youngman]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Joerg Schilling
<address@hidden> wrote:
> James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Joerg Schilling
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > I am sorry, but I cannot do something that is forbidden by law. "copyright
>> > assignment" is forbidden by law in Europe.
>>
>> You're mistaken.  This is not the case.
>>
>> Copyrights are in fact a collection of rights which differ somewhat in
>> various jurisdictions (for example in some countries there is no moral
>> right for computer software).   However, it is reasonable to discuss
>> this in the context of the Berne convention (since only around 20
>> countries are not signatories).   Somewhat loosely the rights can be
>> termed economic rights or moral rights (see the text of the Berne
>> convention, specificially this section:
>> http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726).
>>  Economic rights can be transferred, but moral rights cannot.
>> However, it is not illegal to transfer a moral right, it is merely
>> ineffective.   Agreements to transfer moral rights simply have no
>> effect.   Transfer of copyright rights is not forbidden.
>
> The general problem is that looking at the issues with the background of an
> english mothertonge may give a different result than not doing so:

Well, perhaps that is a _general_ problem.   But it isn't a problem
specifically here.  The Berne convention is published in English.


>
>        The official translation for "Copyright" is "Urheberrecht"
>
> But:
>
>        Urheberrecht =  Nutzungsrechte + Autorenrechte
>                        (Copy rights + Authorship rights)
>
>        Copyright =     Copy rights
>
> so
>        Urheberrecht != Copyright
>
> and from what I have been told by lawyers...: you cannt be sure that a US 
> judge
> will regard the Berne convention or the German Urheberrecht even though he 
> would
> need to.

I'm not sure why you invoke a hypothetical US judge to defend your
claim that signing a copyright assignment would be "forbidden by law
in Europe".

In any case, the Berne Convention is now US law also, and has been
since March 1, 1989.
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/Remarks.jsp?cnty_id=1045C

Even in the hypothetical case that a US judge were to ignore Berne
Convention Implementation Act of 1988, that still doesn't make signing
a copyright assignment "forbidden by law in Europe" as you suggested.


> Fortunately this is about OpenSource and if the OpenSource Definition
> (from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) applies to some code,

It's not about the OSD at all.   I asked if you would be willing to
sign a copyright assignment and you objected on the grounds that it
was forbidden.   The OSD is a red herring here.

> there is no need to have a "copyright assignment" unless you in the future 
> also
> plan to publish the code as closed source or unless you like to do something
> that the author would not agree with.

This is not the case.   There are a number of things that are harder
to do in the absence of a copyright assignment.   The first is to
demonstrate "Standing to sue" in a copyright infringement suit, but
I'm sure there are other reasons too.

> Finally let me ask you: would you give me a "copyright assignment" for your
> code?

This is not my code.  I have already assigned the copyright for my
past and future modifications to CSSC to the FSF.

James.