On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 06:09:19PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > 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. It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would be a conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid, or that anyone having made modifications to RT3 has failed to comply with the license, resulting in a finding that anyone making modifications is infringing Best Practical's copyright. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
