I do not see section 205(e) creating a problem for open source at all. Rod
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, daniel wallace wrote: > Any code developer who releases FOSS code under an unsigned, > nonexclusive license retains the original copyright > ownership rights. If the code developer subsequently legally > transfers his copyrights to a new owner, the code released > under the license is no longer protected from infringement > claims by the new copyright owner. > > TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS > CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER > Sec. 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents. > > (e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and > Nonexclusive License. - A nonexclusive license, whether > recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of > copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written > instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or > such owner's duly authorized agent, and if - > (1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; > or > (2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation > of the transfer and without notice of it. > > Sec. 205 (e) states a sufficient condition for a > nonexclusive license to prevail. Is it a necessary > condition? > > IF it is signed THEN it prevails (a sufficient condition), > but does... > IF it prevails THEN it is signed (a necessary condition) > hold true? > > Here are the remarks from the anointed USC (section (e) is > formerly section (f)). > > "... under subsection (f) of section 205, a nonexclusive > license in writing and signed, whether recorded or not, > would be valid against a later transfer, and would also > prevail as against a prior unrecorded transfer if taken > in good faith and without notice. Objections were raised > by motion picture producers, particularly to the > provision allowing unrecorded nonexclusive licenses to > prevail over subsequent transfers, on the ground that a > nonexclusive license can have drastic effects on the > value of a copyright. On the other hand, the > impracticalities and burdens that would accompany any > requirement of recordation of nonexclusive licenses > outweigh the limited advantages of a statutory recordation > system for them." > > As we have witnessed with the SCO debacle, any questions > concerning nonexclusive license and copyright transfers > should be examined in the short term so that any > enterprising mischief makers (read Microsoft) can be > neutralized. > > > > > > > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
