Quoting Micah Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Again, I feel the HOWTO (rather, DRAFT HOWTO) is wrong.
I note again, without making further comment, that this is squarely within one of the co-authors' professional expertise. (The text of the HOWTO is complete: What's "draft" is its status as an OSI working paper.) > The text of the actual law they specifically cite is rather explicit > that you receive only rights over your own contribution to the work, > in the absense of any explicit assignments. Excuse me, but that's not what the clause in question says: In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. Holder of the collective-work copyright implicitly acquires a "privilege of reproducing and distributing". Any change in terms for the collective work used for such reproduction and distribution that doesn't injure (in a legal sense) the interests of contributors would not create any actionable tort. Of course, it might be rude and unwise, but that's different from being a tort. Complications arise if contributors have explicit copyright / licence statements of their own -- and nobody's going to be able to successfully sue without registering his/her copyright claim (which hardly anyone does). _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech
