Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:12:56PM +1200, Nick Phillips
Branden> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 05:00:54PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications,
>> corrections or > > # extensions to this work which alter its
>> source code become the > > # property of Best Practical
>> Solutions, LLC when submitted for > > # inclusion in the work.
>>
>> > It is not just GPL-incompatible, it is non-free.
>> >
>> > Your modifications, corrections, or extensions have value.
>> Best > Practical Solutions, LLC, is asserting ownership in
>> something you have > created.
>>
>> No, it's not. It's only saying that *if* you submit them for
>> inclusion in the work.
Branden> Incorrect. It doesn't say "you" anywhere in that clause.
>> Nothing is forcing you to do that.
Branden> Right; but it remains true even if someone steals your
Branden> modifications, corrections or extensions to the work off
Branden> your computer and submits them to Best Practical
Branden> Solutions, LLC. The license places no restrictions on
Branden> who performs the act of submission, or under what
Branden> circumstances the submission is made.
I don't think a court would see it that way. I agree that the license
would be better if clarified to say that in submitting a patch, you
assert that you have the necessary intelectual property rights and
that you assign those rights to Best Practical, or to in some other
way make it more clear.
I'd like to ask you to support your claim that a court would hold that
work stolen from you and contributed to Best Practical would be owned
by Best Practical under this license. Can you cite any cases where
similar things have happened?
Especially under US copyright law, this interpretation seems unlikely.
As has been discussed previously on this list, a copyright assignment
requires a written statement from the copyright holder. I personally
believe that as it stands the clause of the RT license that would
automatically transfer copyright is unenforceable.
Reply to: