On 18/04/2019 19:02, Bryan Gonzalez wrote:
> For kicks and giggles. I found the contradictions on the same page,
> sequentially even.
>
> The short of it is, you don't have to register, but you really should if you
> want to sue later or if you dont want someone else to steal the copyright and
> then have to prove who did it first. Sounds an aweful lot like patenting.
>
> *When is my work protected?*
>
> Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in
> a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a
> machine or device.
>
>
> *Do I have to register with your office to be protected?*
>
> No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment
> the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring
> a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, /Copyright Basics/,
> section “Copyright Registration <https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf>.”
>
>
> *Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?*
>
> Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register
> their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the
> public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be
> eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation.
> Finally, if registration occurs within five years of publication, it is
> considered /prima facie/ evidence in a court of law. See Circular
> 1, /Copyright Basics/, section “Copyright Registration
> <https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf#page=7>” and Circular 38b
> <https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf>, /Highlights of Copyright
> Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA)/, on non-U.S.
> works.
>
>
> *I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?*
>
> The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes
> called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law
> regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for
> registration.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019, 12:30 PM Pierre Labastie <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> On 18/04/2019 17:46, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > I think you may want to consider making jhalfs public domain. No one
> > can "take it private" as there is nothing compiled to binary.
> > Everything is either a script or text.
>
> In my opinion, I would like it to be public. But I may not have the
> right to decide about that. As a contributor, am I a licensee, an user,
> a copyright holder?
> >
> > What do you do if someone violates the license? Are you ready to go
> > to court?
>
> Not really, but I think the aim is also to protect authors: if a company
> wants to take over the software and to sue authors because they use or
> modify it without authorization, it would be a license infringement, so
> they can't win the trial (at least it is how I understand it). Also, I
> think it is important that any modification is attributed to whoever
> makes it. What if somebody adds anonymously to the README that this
> software is forbidden to be used by women (or any other category of
> people)? This is forbidden by law in many countries, I think, and an
> author could be fined for that, while he wouldn't be responsible.
> >
> > You may also want to consider the MIT License:
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/appendices/mit.html
> Yeah, I like that, actually. Now, I think Jeremy and/or Gerard have
> something to say. Jeremy added the GPLv2 license file.
> >
> > I'll note that in the US copyright is automatic. You do not have to
> > register a copyright or even say it is copyrighted. Here is some info:
> >
> > https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
> >
> Yet another source of information, somehow contradicting the link given
> by Bryan...
I've read a little more about this [1], and wants to summarize here what I
understand. Note that I've not checked that what I say is valid in countries
other than US (I've just seen yesterday, when looking at W3m, that a true open
source license is impossible in Japan). jhalfs has been based in US from its
beginning, so let us consider it is under the US law:
- All contributors are copyright holders. There's no need to register to be a
copyright holder, and there is no notion of a minimum contribution to be a
copyright holder. Actually, all contributors have made substantial
contributions, so the point about minimal contribution is not relevant here.
- If there is no license, nobody has right to use, distribute, modify, parts
he or she has not written, unless given explicit permission! Even other
contributors have no right to modify what is already written! This is the aim
of the license to relax such permissions.
- Jeremy, the initiator of the project has chosen the GPLv2 license, so all
contributions are under this license. Changing to another license is possible
only if the new license is compatible with the previous one, unless the
copyright holders agree to change to an incompatible license. Here, the only
compatible license is GPLv3. AGPLv3 is not (too restrictive), LGPLv3 is not
(too permissive), and other common licenses (MIT, Apache, Mozilla) are too
permissive too. At this point, we have two possibilities:
- go to GPLv3 (or keep GLPv2, but it is not well suited to modern ways of
collaborating).
- Ask the seven contributors whether they accept a more permissive license
(I would push for MIT. Other licenses are not very sensible for jhalfs).
- Gihub has two types of repo:
- private, means a few collaborators (maximum of 4 with free github) can
access the repository, but it is not visible to anybody else
- public, means it is visible to anybody, and anybody can be given commits
right, but there are again to possibilities:
- owned by an individual, who has all the administrative rights.
- owned by an organization. Means there may be several owners, which
may give various rights to users (administration, commit, etc, I've
not read it in full yet)
Thoughts?
Pierre
[1] specially github's guide: https://opensource.guide/legal/
PS: sorry Bryan, for the delay. Actually, I've pending modifications I'd like
to commit before moving, anyway.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
