On Jun 4, 2004, at 15:55, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:On Jun 3, 2004, at 15:12, Glenn Maynard wrote:Be careful. You're quoting US law in an international context. Not everyone lives in the US.You're right, this is isn't the MIT Kerberos, it's the KTH one...I'm not saying the originating region matters;
It does somewhat when trying to figure out what a clause is intended to mean. If we saw something like that in a US-based licensor's license, we can be pretty sure it isn't trying to be a copyright assignment, because it can't be.
Also, assume for a moment there is a jurisdiction, FOO, where copyright assignment can be done by non-signed documents. Fred, who lives in FOO, sends me an email with some code and a statement that he assigned the copyright to me. Is the copyright assigned? I'd guess no.
I'm saying that a copyright assignment clause might be valid in some regions.
FYI, after much googling I think I might of finally found one... http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:WI9m0navnrwJ: www.ipophilippines.gov.ph/laws/ipcode/CopyrightsCh7.htm+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(Yeah, google cache because their server seems dead...)I'm not sure if a license would count as "a written indication of such intention."
(I'd be cautious about that, too--any "this clause is non-free but unenforcable so let's ignore it" reasoning should be taken very carefully, and with theunderstanding that it may be ignoring the wishes of the author.)
Agreed.