On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:57:35AM -0700, Josh Parmenter wrote: > On Mar 18, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Graham Percival wrote: > >> If I don't produce any copyrightable source code, then its >> ownership can't be in question, right?) > Why isn't the code copyrightable?
Because I don't write it in the first place. :) > It IS copyrightable, but the open-source license lays out under what > terms others can use it. Yes, but I can only place source code under an open-source license if I own that code. If I'm working under a contract that states that the university owns everything[1] I do -- which I /am/ -- then I cannot make anything open-source. [1] everything created "with university resources" or "that is significantly similar to their university duties" (those are paraphrases, not exact quotes) Right now, if there's any question whether music notation is "significantly similar" to the computer music research I'm doing (they actually *aren't* similar, but I'm not certain that a university administrator would realize this), then the university can only lay claim to emails like this one. Big deal. It's not like Valentin can retroactively not act upon my suggestions. :) However, if I were to write code for lilypond and any legal issues arose, then the lilypond project might be in trouble. At the very least, we'd need to remove whatever features I added or bugs I fixed. That's why I'll start as a Frog after I leave this job, and not before. :) Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
