Christophe Dupre scripsit: > The problem (from our perspective) with your proposition is that if the > 3rd party is too lazy to submit a patch, is run over by a bus, or is > unavailable, even if we get the code from a 4th party that got it from the > 3rd party, we're no longer able to re-license the code to commercial > entities.
Actually, you are able to do so both legally and ethically. The code is free as in beer: it has no commercial value. That being so, the aggrieved copyright owner is unable to sue you to any purpose. Actual damages are nonexistent, and statutory damages are only available to people who bother to register their copyrights -- and how likely is that, given that they won't bother to sign over the code? In any event, given the requirements of the U.S. Copyright Act for a written instrument (not any particular form, but definitely in writing) for a transfer of exclusive rights, I very much doubt that your licensing provision will be effective in doing so. So drop 2(d) and just use the patches without worrying about it, and if your bosses have a problem, tell them to drop some money on Larry Rosen and he will bless this view. However, IANAL, TINLA. -- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
