On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 07:26:38PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > But, in such an (unlikely) court battle the onus would be on them to > > > prove that the stuff they committed was both copyrightable in the first > > > place as well as not infringing on previous work (which they apparently > > > didn't have any license to modify). > > > Nope, without a license the contributor could ask for compensation per > > copy that was distributed if the court would agree that he has copyright > > on it and we didn't have permission to distribute it (which is not far > > fetched at all without having a license...). > > As I said above... they could hardly claim copyright on modifications which > they made without a license.
Also, there is no direct damadge made to the contributor too. Compensation is for something they have fair claim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]