David Kastrup wrote: [...] > > IBM didn't remain the copyright holder, but FSF just can't be > > exclusive licensor > > Well, reread what Alfred wrote above. "exclusive copyright holder".
Yeah, as if copyright ownership can be non-exclusive (in the sense of suing strangers -- not parties to license contracts). It all started in response to my statement that employer is either legally-recognized author or exclusive licensor (the former being US work-for-hire, and the later being the default for (not work-for-hire) authors... who may also have *inalienable* moral rights; mostly in Europe, that is). Do you know what "exclusive licensor" means? It means that only that legal person can grant licensees (the right may be limited to a field of use or geographic territory). And with respect to assigned stuff, the FSF is neither exclusive licensor nor author (in regards to inalienable moral rights). regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
