Re: Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to
> > > prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first
> > > place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently
> > > didn't have any license to modify).
>
> > Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per
> > copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright
> > on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far
> > fetched at all without having a license...).
>
> As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which
> they made without a license.
Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too.
Compensation is for something they have fair claim.
Reply to: