IANAL. This is not legal advice.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:59:48AM +0100, Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
> >I'll also request everyone tries to ensure that you do not try and
> >represent anything as legal "fact" unless its been thoroughly verified that
> >it is indeed rather certain that what is being said is undisputable. Also,
> >always try and provide as much references as possible.
> >
> The problem "root" lies back in the times when the first laws where
> written to protect intellectual property. In UK, copyright laws were
> written, which originally only regulated reproduction and publishing
> rights, while in France the laws were centered around the "droite
> d'auteur" or author's right. Later, copyright laws were only adopted in
> the countries most strongly influenced by the UK, e.g. USA and probably
> Canada, while most other countries adopted the French idea of generally
> protecting the author as a "static" owner of his intellecutal property.
> In Germany, the author's rights are so strong, that they even to some
> extend apply for works produced by an employee or as part of a paid
> assignment.
>
> The issues I'm pointing out are regulated like this in the German
> "Gesetz ?ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte" ("Law on author's
> rights and related protective rights"):
>
> ?29(1): Das Urheberrecht ist nicht ?bertragbar, es sei denn, es wird in
> Erf?llung einer Verf?gung von Todes wegen oder an Miterben im Wege der
> Erbauseinandersetzung ?bertragen.
>
> The author's right is not transferable, unless it is transfered to an
> inheritor in connection with the author's death.
>
> ?? 41 and 42 are regulating the author's "R?ckrufsrecht" or "revokation
> right". ?41 is regulating the case, in which an exclusive usage right is
> not being practised, while ?42 is regulating the author's right to
> revoke a usage right, in case of "gewandelter ?berzeugung", however that
> is to be translated properly to English. "Modified/changed belief or
> conviction" is a brave attempt. ?42(2) regulates that the author's right
> to exercise his revokation right can not be excepted.
>
> ?34 regulates the transfer of usage rights and sublicensing
> ("?bertragung von Nutzungsrechten"). Any such transfer must be agreed
> upon by the author, although it is restricted in which cases he may deny
> such transfer to take place. At least the way I interpret these
> regulations, it is not possible for the author to agree to a blanket
> sublicensing grant, as his rights depends on the exact conditions around
> the license transfer.
>
> Regulations on derivative works are spread across several paragraphs
> (??14, 23, 39, etc). As in the issue with ?42, derivative works may not
> be produced or published if they are against the author's belief (which
> may change with time).
Yup, all that sounds pretty familiar, and thanks for writing it up. I
disagree with some of how you map these laws onto what is stated in the
Apache CLA, and I also don't think it necessarily results in the kinds of
problems that you are worrying about.
However, this is getting firmly off-topic for a "development" mailing list.
I'm sure we're boring everyone to death; lets take this discussion
elsewhere :-)
cheers,
Leo
