On 20 Jul 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > >I'm snipping the normal John Galt obstructionism, off-topic political >commentary, and attempts to confuse issues, and responding only to the >real questions.
No, snippage around you usually means an attempt to redefine the argument. >John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >This is dangerous, because the group has no legal reality as a rule. >> >It doesn't mean you lose copyright, certainly, but it injects a vest >> >doubt into "who is the group". For example, if you write something, >> >put it in the project, so that it's "owned by the group", and then >> >stop participating in the group, there is now an anomaly. The group >> >name no longer accurately reflects the actual authors of the code; >> >would the court follow the current membership of the group or not? >> >> We've been over this, and my "randroid philosophy" is closer to the truth >> than this claptrap. Unorganized groups are becoming closer to having >> legal standing. Group membership can become a real problem, but I assume >> that they'd be smart enough to make contingency plans around that. > >The status of unorganized groups is in great legal limbo. Sure, >courts do the best they can when confronted with the situation, but if >you want to avoid hassle, the best thing to do is *avoid hassle* and >not just shove it around. If you think dealing with a long >contributors list in copyrights is hassle, then surely you don't want >the extra hassle of dealing with the status of an unorganized group in >court. A long way from your first refutation, which was that unorganized groups categorically have no legal standing. >> Yeah, so? It's thorny, but it IS an option. BTW, most of the laws you >> mentioned are for publically held companies, not closely held ones. > >Um, that's not really true. The hassle of corporation law is really >quite awful; there are a lot of books promising "incorporate yourself >now" as the great solution to lots of things, and in practice, it's >strikingly bad. But it's not so horrible you shouldn't ever do it. >It's just that to do it right requires considerable legal expertise. >If you don't do that, then there is real risk of doing it wrong. And >the point of this whole exercise is to avoid hassle. The hassle of >dealing with a badly-maintained corporation or badly-setup corporation >is considerable (go ask the NetBSD project). The way you put it, it's no point for a small business to incorporate. This is belied by the number that do each year. http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html#Legal Lists that there are about 2 million C corporations in existence compared to 1 million partnerships. Considering that partnerships are the elder, it would figure that if partnership (the list of thirty names) were scalable, it would be numerically superior. >Since the goal in this discussion was to avoid hassle, you only do >that if you are careful to get the corporation set up *right*, and not >just set up and hoping its right, and trusting the court to settle it >out later. > >> >This is usually a winner. Note that number (4) and number (3) really >> >boil down to this one. Except that it need not be a "third party"; it >> >could just as easily be a lead developer on the project. The FSF is >> >always a fine choice; by assigning code to the FSF you don't lose any >> >of your rights at all over it. (The standard FSF assignment is not >> >just a complete transfer of all rights.) >> >> This is also the most sub-optimal, and 4 and 3 are assigning rights to a >> actual stakeholder: I explicitly used third party here--one who is not by >> definition a stakeholder. > >Well, by assignment I mean actual legal assignment. I read (3) and >(4) as informal changes in what you put in the copyright statements >and not legal transfers of copyright. A license is a contract, and wording within is binding. >As is usual, when you get to the meat of the issue, you suddenly stop >giving arguments. Why exactly is it sub-optimal to assign to a >third-party you trust, especially (as with FSF assignments) you don't >lose any of your rights in the process? Who says you don't lose any of your rights? Is the FSF willing to sign contracts to that effect? >Thomas > -- <a mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Who is John Galt?</a> Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. -- Ferenc Mantfeld