You would be assuming wrong. /UIRC-GSA Holdings Inc. v. William Blair & Co., L.L.C./, No. 15-CV-9518, 2017 WL 1163864, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2017) (bond offering documents copyrightable); /Homeowner Options for Mass. Elders, Inc. v. Brookline Bancorp, Inc./, 754 F. Supp. 2d 201, 209 (D. Mass. 2010) (mortgage forms copyrightable); /Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Rodriguez/, 439 F. Supp. 2d 510, 516–17 (E.D. Va. 2006) (customer contract copyrightable); /Am. Family Life Ins. Co. of Columbus v. Assurant, Inc./, No. 1:05-CV-1462-BBM, 2006 WL 4017651, at *6–8 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2006) (insurance policies copyrightable). To those of us who write them, they are as creative as code.
Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com On 5/31/2019 6:51 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > License texts are functional, and I would have assumed that they are > not subject to copyright. No doubt we have cases from boilerplate form > producers as precedent. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > On Fri, May 31, 2019, 13:45 Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com > <mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: License-discuss > [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org>] On Behalf > Of Richard Fontana > >>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:08 AM > >>To: mas...@opensource.org <mailto:mas...@opensource.org>; > license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses > > >>For example, for the MIT license: > > >>(1) No submitter -- the MIT license was grandfathered in by the > original OSI board > >>(2) No nominal copyright owner > >>(3) Despite its name, MIT does not appear to have authored the > MIT license, based on the historical research I've done -- > somewhat important because in later times I believe the MIT tech > transfer office itself assumed -- based on the name popularized by > the OSI itself -- that it had authored the MIT license, and also > more recently some of the members of the "open source licenses can > be copyright only" camp wish to argue that the MIT license should > be read as a "copyright only" license because the present-day MIT > tech transfer office supposedly takes that view. MIT is not the > license steward of the MIT license -- there is no license steward > -- which is separate from but closely related to the authorship > and copyright ownership issue. > > Here's some MIT license archeology: > https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license > > Be interesting to see one on BSD too, although I didn't see a > similar one using some quick web inquiries. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
