But there are cases where a transferee is deemed to have a non-exclusive
license for some sec. 106 purposes. See Effects Associates.
In any event do we agree that a disclaimer is a good idea to prevent any
ambigutiies in the future? Shall we send the disclaimer to debian list
members informing that continued receipt of and posting to mailing lists
constitutes consent ot the terms?
I mean really the small developer is not who we should be concerned
about litigating. Assume, a developer of a large company who posts
something their management later takes offense to. A company with
resources is not going to have any problem sending nasty letters
threatening suit unless the posts are retracted. At least with the
disclaimer we will have something to point to. (We may still have to
litigate the consent and implied agency blah blah but...)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --
You certainly own the copy. However, that doesn't neccessarily give
you license to the various exclusive rights I have to my email, as
enumerated in 17 USC 106. Public performance (eg, putting an archive
on
the web) is one of those exclusive rights.
It's clear that you can keep any email you get, and can use them in
the ways enumrated as fair use in 17 USC 107. But that doesn't
neccessarily mean that I have granted you the right to publiclly
perform, publish, etc that work.