[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Group Copyright

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Joseph Carter wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 04:03:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>> I can see where you are going.  The alternatives I see are pretty much
>> five:
>> 1) the list of thirty names
>If there is no legal problem with this, it's reasonable.

True, but this is the outcome that we're trying to avoid, as it's

>> 2) the group/readme
>If there is no legal problem with this, it's better (because it's less of
>a hassle!)

I'm thinking it could be construed as a DBA.

>> 3) list two or three primary contacts (the Berne riff kind of means that
>> all thirty still have standing to sue).
>Don't you still have to notify everyone?  What if some people cannot be
>contacted?  Must notice be served in any particular manner or does an
>email count?  (This is what worries me in the first place..)

Written notice (basically court service).  As far as "cannot be
contacted", if publishing in the paper's enough for service on the
Defendant, I'm sure it should be good enough for a potential Plaintiff.

>> 4) incorporate (some places incorporation requires some small number
>> [anywhere from 1 to 5] of incorporators, and a few bucks to the state:
>> Idaho requires one and $30, for example).
>Oregon requires one person, $50 fee, $10 fee for name reservation for 120
>days (I assume while the process is underway to ensure you get your name?)
>and uslaw.com will apparently help you generate Articles of Incorporation
>along with other canned legal documents for a (surprisingly) small fee.
>I'm fairly sure it's not actually as simple as that - I'm thinking taxes
>Anyway, I'm not sure everyone is going to be interested in taking that
>risk, and I'm not sure I blame them.

No, I can't either.  But I'd be remiss if I didn't at least tell you about

>> 5) assign rights to a trusted third party or a third party that all agree
>> should recieve them.
>And this is even riskier.

True enough.  The risk is usually outweighed by the intangibles associated
with the third party.  If they aren't free software zealots, perhaps some
other charity like the local church or something.

>> Bounce some of these off them and see if anybody has any "that won't work,
>> but if we change it to this..." ideas.  I'd be interested in how your
>> group finally solves this one.
>I'll talk to them.  I can't promise a quick resolution but will follow up
>if we reach any major conclusion that we're all 100% sure is right or so.

The Internet must be a medium for it is neither Rare nor Well done!
<a href="mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu";>John Galt </a>

Reply to: