----- Original Message ----- > From: Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:31 AM > Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion > > I agree, there is no contradiction, and I appreciate your answers. > It's likely my lack of knowledge likely makes my questions hard to > understand. :) > > I guess my question can be rephrased as: Through what legal means is > the collective copyright of Lucy (and other Apache projects) > transferred to the ASF?
This doesn't make sense. Let's not talk about software but about books. Some books are just a collection of articles written by different authors and published by someone who has acquired the necessary rights to publish those articles into this particular book. Both the publisher and the individual authors have standing in court to sue someone for copyright violations that may arise as a result of this publication. With Lucy the ASF is the analog of the publisher of the collection of articles. The ASF has the legal right to offer this collection via the ICLA from the individual authors. > The quote was to show that there needs to be > an express transfer of rights from the authors to the ASF, and not > simply the granting of a license. No, you're just misreading the quote. The quote limits the rights of a collected work publisher, who under normal circumstances only requires explicit permission to use an individual author's copyrighted material. Such publishers for example do not enjoy the right to produce derivative works of the individual authors' works merely by obtaining the minimal rights necessary to produce a collective work. However the ICLA is much stronger than what copyright law already covers. The ASF has a non-exclusive license to exercise every aspect of what copyright law normally covers, including the right to produce derivative works and collective works based on ICLA-covered contributions. > > Alternatively phrased, how would a court know that the ASF, and not > for example RightHaven, has legal standing to sue for redress of > copyright violations? Generally, this is only possibly by the > copyright holder, and not by a license holder. Is there some transfer > of rights outside of the licenses granted by the CLA or SGA? You're failing to understand the role of a collective work and how it related to the composite individual efforts. I'm sorry I can't explain this any better than I already have, so I suggest trying [email protected] for further discussion. > > I use RightHaven as an example, not only because they are the > antithesis of the ASF, but since they recently were judged not to > have standing to sue on behalf of a copyright holder[1]. Reading that > decision, I'm wondering how the ASF would go about proving to a judge > that they have legal standing. > > But this is way off-topic for Lucy, so I'll try to find another venue > to ask, or will happily take answers offline. Apologies for the > interruption. > > --nate > > [1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/14 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > wrote: >> That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand > the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the > ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I > guess >>> that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim >>> copyright in the collected work? >>> >>> 17 USC § 201 (c) says: >>> "In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any >>> rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is >>> presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and >>> distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective >>> work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective >>> work in the same series." >>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201 >>> >>> This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there >>> additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred >>> this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the >>> ASF mandatory copywrite notice? >>> >>> --nate >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual > authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a > transgressor may be sued by both parties. >>>> >>>> HTH >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only > copyright >>>>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy? >>>>> >>>>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The > Apache Software >>>>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines: >>>>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice >>>>> >>>>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant > Agreement, >>>>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than > assignments of >>>>> copyright. >>>>> >>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt >>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>>>> >>>>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original > work of authorship ... >>>>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the > Foundation", and the >>>>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient > rights to >>>>> contribute the software source code and other related > intellectual >>>>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses > only refer >>>>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can > see is >>>>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF. >>>>> >>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt >>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt >>>>> >>>>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do > they >>>>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations? >>>>> >>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments > on a >>>>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment > requirements >>>>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement: >>>>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998 >>>>> >>>>> --nate >
