Am 27.06.2015 19:33 schrieb "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>:
> Sent off-list by mistake. (fat-fingered the "To" list) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 09:23 > To: 'Ted Dunning' > Subject: RE: Licensing Issue > > The TL;DR My concern is about any statement that suggests claiming the > whole work, not just the original aspect of the derivative, as under the > copyright of the creator of the derivative. Any attempt to enforce that > can come to grief. It is that one aspect of Ted’s statement about > “claiming as one’s own” that I wanted to correct. The making of the > derivative of a CC0/public-domain work is not the problem, it is about any > mistaken claim asserted over it. > > - Dennis > > ESSAY VERSION > > In the case of a CC0 or a public-domain work, the claiming of the > derivative entire as under one’s own copyright will come to grief in > litigation. Not a likely case. But it has happened in the past that > usurpers have claimed such copyrights and used it as a threat against even > the previous contributors. The successful perpetrator believed that > relicensing can happen this way, and the victims did not know otherwise. > > It is always good to be clear, especially in a combined work, what is > subject to a particular claim. The ASF policies on handling of third-party > source codes is a good example. Even though attribution is not necessarily > a requirement, it demonstrates acting in good faith and I assume that > matters a great deal to the Foundation. > > My favorite example of this has to do with how copyright is applied to > republication of “The Wizard of Oz” book, long in the public domain. > > Print publishers do not always provide such clarity. And one has no idea > what private arrangements are made as part of the Rights & Permissions work > that publishers (and film producers) go through. I do note that many > combined works provide an enumeration of original sources and sometimes > “used with permission” notices, despite claiming copyright on the > combination (also similar to what the LICENSE on an Apache Project release > is tantamount to, since the ASF does not require copyright on contributions > and that is quite deliberate.) > > The fundamental notion is a simple statement in the US Copyright code. My > own copyright subsists automatically and completely in the that portion of > a work that (1) is copyrightable subject matter and (2) is my original > contribution. And to nothing else in that derivative. > > This will not absolve me of infringement of the original source for a > derivative absent it being public domain or absent my having a license to > make a derivative (i.e., the open-source case) in accordance with the > conditions on the license. I could also have become an owner of the > copyright by explicit or automatic transfer. > > I.e., Sun and Oracle became owners of the OpenOffice.org source code by > virtue of a CLA that included a non-exclusive transfer of copyright. They > did not need that from their own employees because of the work-for-hire > provision and probably particulars of their employment agreements. This is > what made Apache OpenOffice possible, because it only required a simple SGA > from Oracle alone. > > -- Dennis, who does not even play a lawyer on cable. > > PS: I recently had two technical papers published. I did not make any > copyright transfer. The boilerplate notice on each paper has these > wordings: > > “… Copyright for components of this worked owned by others > than [Publisher] must be honored. ... > "Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication > rights licensed to [Publisher]." > > The combined proceedings which incorporates those papers has a notice of > copyright by [Publisher] in the front matter. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 01:19 > To: gene...@incubator.apache.org; Dennis Hamilton > Subject: Re: Licensing Issue > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton < > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > There's a difference between making a claim, affixing a notice, etc., and > it being lawful and the right to having done so being legally defensible. > > I suspect this normally doesn't matter and is a trifle unless a conflict > of some sort drags the usurper into court. Finding plagiarism, even in a > derivative, will be quite unfortunate. > > I am confused here. > > How is making a derivative work of a CC0 licensed work going to ever come > to grief? > > > >
