On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 03:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > [ The different modes of development have already well established > names. Look up Open Core, centralized copyright etc)
these are fruits of my independent research and observations > > > note 1: Change of license is only possible if all the contributors > agree > > to the change. Even if one disagrees, his work has to be removed > before > > the license is changed. Which means that once the number of > contributors > > reaches a critical mass, change of license is impossible. > > Not really true. Number of contributors is irrelevant. What is > important is diversity of copyright holders or the specific > permissions > provided by a contributions license agreement if one exists. MySQL or > Openoffice.org or most of the FSF/GNU projects has a single copyright > holder and that entity can change the license anytime they want to. this is what I said. > Also > not all contributions are worthy of copyright. > > > note 2: Although software cannot be stolen or made proprietary (only > a > > copy can be stolen or made proprietary), the owner of the copyright > can > > sell the copyright (as opposed to selling a copy). But if the number > of > > developers has reached a critical mass, selling the copyright is > also > > impossible. > > Copyright laws have several major differences depending on which part > of > the world we are talking about. India > In some places, public domain is not a > legally recognized concept for instance. I know some one floated an idea that 'public domain' is not a legally recognised concept in the US - but I doubt it has any validity. Anyway in India it is not only recognised, but codified. btw, what has this got to do with the discussion? -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
