On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 10:16 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 21:42 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > for legal reasons we now have to ask everyone that attaches a patch for > > > Clutter to our Bugzilla to waive the copyright for the patch itself -- > > > effectively placing the patch under public domain. > > > > > > the full copyright waiver is available at: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/waiver.html > > [snip] > > > > Will the Clutter license be changing to public domain too? > > obviously not. > > > I don't > > believe a license (LGPL at the moment) can be enforced if there is no > > copyright holder, and probably not if large parts of the product have no > > copyright holder. > > the patch, in order to be integrated, must be placed under the public > domain; once we integrate it in the repository it effectively becomes > part of Clutter, hence it falls under its licensing terms. > > other than that, IANAL -- but the legal team that came up with this > option are so I tend to trust their recommendations on legal matters.
Yeah, I would normally avoid any boring legal discussion, but I do think it's a fundamental part of copyright law that you can't go to court and defend a copyright if you are not the copyright holder. That concept has some fancy latin name and it's lawyer 101. And a license is meaningless without copyright. I suggest you run that idea by the lawyers. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com -- To unsubscribe send a mail to clutter+unsubscr...@o-hand.com
