On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 13:26 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt > > > > > > You can also look at it this way, a country is way easier to control by > > > a dictator than by some pesky parliament that always disagree with each > > > other. But still most people would rather not have a dictator in their > > > country. If people can not agree what to do about a copyright violation > > > of a common piece of software, maybe that's how it should be, maybe > > > creating a "dictator" by assigning all copyright to "him" is not always > > > in the best interest of the community. > > > > Assigning copyrights doesnt require any dictator (individual) . You can > > very well assign copyrights to foundations like Apache or organizations > > like FSF > Well, then let me emphasize what Alan said before: In Europe, the legal > situation is not as clear as you seem to be presuming it. I am not presuming anything in Europe. What I claim only applies to US as stated in the links I have given above and all my examples have been US based organizations. > > Esp. in Germany and probably other (European) countries, copyrights in > general are not assignable at all [1], which means they probably are > legally void, a fact which could be legally exploited to fight a license > at court. > > > > Ralf > > [1] Germany's constitution explicitly protects copyright on artistic > work. The question, which AFAICT has not been decided at courts yet, is > if "free, independent and uncontracted work on OSS above a certain > amount" qualifies as "free art" and therefore would impose OSS to be > protected by Germany's constitution. - So far, at least many legal > publications share and emphasize this view. > Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
