Bug#332782: Release Notes: license clarification
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:55:24PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> 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.
One problem is with people who contribute stuff they *didn't* have the
rights to. The copyright holder could, of course sue them, but could
also sue us. And if those people just go bankrupt, we have no hope of
recovering damages (i.e., what we owe the real copyright holder) from
them.
-- hendrik
Reply to: