At 3:21 PM +0200 on 7/20/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
> I think the people who added to a file will themselves take care that they
>are mentioned as copyright holders of a part by adding that to the source
>file. Of course, the person who then merges all changed sources (or some
>Version Control Software if we ever get that far) will have to take care to
>add all names to the file's header.
But, only the copyright holder can file suit to stop an infringment. So, if
20 people hold the copyright, who files a lawsuit? Must thye all jointly?
Can one alone? We _need_ a lawyer's advice before deciding this.
>
> But there should be a distinction between people who apply small bug fixes
>and people who actually re-write a good part. A re-write should change the
>copyright, or at least add to it, while I think fixing a typo should go in
>the "Thanks To" section w/o giving Copyright to that person. Else we'll be
>at dozens of Copyright holders in no time.
Yes, but what is the difference between a "bug fix" and a "re-write"? Can't
bug fixes take the form of re-writes? And aren't some bug fixes very
important? Who decides?
Ultimately, under the Berne convention, once you write something, you own
it. We'd wind up with hundreds of copyright holders. It'd be a complete
mess... Immagine if you wanted to apply a patch from the "copyright
holder". Who's that? Or if you needed to make special distribution
arrangements -- who would you make them with? 300 people?
