Subject:
|
Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:36:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
856 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> > > I've been away the past week, hence my lack of contribution until now...
> > >
> > > What problem does the CA solve? Since all of the parts are individually
> > > released under a creative commons attribution license, there is nothing
> > > to prevent LDraw.Org (or me for that matter) from collecting the various
> > > parts together and releasing them as a library.
> > >
> > > I've inserted a couple of comments in the agreement below.
> > >
> > > Totally confused,
> >
> >
> > The CA really isn't a license in the traditional since. It's intended to be a
> > codification of the current way we run acceptance of contributions (i.e. the
> > status quo in words) with a little explanitory text thrown in and a procedure
> > for changing the status quo if it become necessary to do so. This is needed
> > because people come and go from the hobby and if we don't spell out exactly how
> > changes can be made and get the athors to agree to the procedure in advance
> > we'll be right back in the boat we are now with the very real possibility of
> > losing parts from the library because an author cannot be contacted.
>
> Orion:
>
> The Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) is irrevocable
> (read section 7.) You can not lose a part that has been released
> under CCAL. The original author is free to stop distributing the
> original work (in this case a part), but s/he can not prevent the
> LDraw.Org from redistributing it. S/he can not prevent LDraw.Org
> or other interested parties from modifying the work/part either.
>
> Once you have all parts under the CCAL, you will never be in
> the situation where you might loose parts. Thus, the CA is
> unnecessary to prevent part lossage.
>
> 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.
Two things here are wrong:
1) copyrights can be transferred.
they can be assigned or liscenced, but the original copyright holder is always
the copyright holder. when people sign away thier copyrights, they are
typically signing a liscence (many are exclusive). LDraws is a non-exclusive
liscence, but they still have all rights as the liscence defines. The CA
defines these rights, including the right to redistribute
2) only the copyright holder can change a liscence
not true. depends on what the liscence says. If the liscence gives me the
right to sell it to someone else, that would be a change. If the liscence
agrees to a variable royalty rate (Depending on market conditions and adjusted
for inflation) than that would be a change. If the change and how it is to
happen are well defined in the agreement, then it is possible.
> 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.
>
> Please note, I understand the desire to be able to change
> the part license in the future, but the CA as written does not
> come close to acheiving that goal. Until the CA starts talking
> about transferring copyrights to LDraw.Org, it will not be possible
> for LDraw.Org to change the part license away from CCAL.
> It is my personal opinion that the CCAL is adequate by itself,
> transferring copyrights to LDraw.Org is not worth the hassle.
>
> -Wayne
I think the CA is quite well written, thoa, it would be a good idea to run it by
an actual contract lawyer (preferably an IP one) first. I am none of those. :)
-Alfred
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) [snip] (...) Your statement is false. In the United States, copyrights are a form of intellectual property that can be bought and sold like any other form of property. In the United States, once the copyright has been transferred, the original (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) Orion: The Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) is irrevocable (read section 7.) You can not lose a part that has been released under CCAL. The original author is free to stop distributing the original work (in this case a part), but (...) (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
|
|
|
|
