Subject:
|
Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:23:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
947 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Indeed, I'll go one step further, the CA is totally unenforcable.
> > Unless, LDraw.Org requires that the part copyrights be
> > transferred to LDraw.Org, it is completely illegal for LDraw.Org
> > to change the license to the parts without getting permission
> > from each part owner. Only the copyright holder can change
> > the license. No amount of verbiage you put in the CA is going
> > to give LDraw.Org that permission unless there is an actual
> > transfer of part copyrights to LDraw.Org. Luckily, there is no
> > need to change the CCAL since its only requirement is that
> > you keep the original author attribution with the part.
>
> You make some very good points. I do have one question though:
>
> Isn't getting the Author to agree to the change procedure the same as them
> giving to consent to change? In other words, I give permission to change the
> license if the follow conditions are met. Is the fact that it's conditional a
> problem?
Orion:
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give you my opinion for what it is worth...
In my opinion, the problem is that LDraw.Org has no legal authority
to change a part license unless it owns the copyright to the part.
Here is the relevant verbiage from Section 4a:
You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter
or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work.
In section 7a, the temination clause says:
This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate
automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License.
If LDraw.Org changes the CCAL on a part that they do not own the
copyright to, they are violating section 4a of the CCAL and hence
loose all rights to redistribute the part!!! As near as I can tell,
the CA immediately violates the CCAL section 4a.
If you really want the right to change the license, I think that right
must be embedded in the part license, not be a separate CA
document. Thus, the CCAL could be modified to explicitly allow
LDraw.Org to change the license at will. Whether or not you
could get everybody to sign on to such a modified license is
another story.
The CCAL has the additional advantage that it was written by
a very parinoid laywer. The moment you attempt to modify CCAL,
you run the risk of totally messing up the license. I would
not recommend attempting to do so.
The more I look into this, the more I think that the CA is
a "bad idea" that should simply be dropped.
Again, this is just my personal opinion.
-Wayne
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) If the parts authors are agreeing to liscence their parts to LDraw using this, then you may have a point in the sub-liscence section. However, my understanding is that the LDraw authors are giving liscence by using the CA. The creative commons (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) You make some very good points. I do have one question though: Isn't getting the Author to agree to the change procedure the same as them giving to consent to change? In other words, I give permission to change the license if the follow (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
