Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>]

> Right.  I'd noticed that, but since I don't know Collabnet's policy
> here I didn't want
> to presume.  Is it acceptable to clone the copyright from an existing
> file?  

Yes, but the notice still needs to be made proper in terms of dates.

> Does
> that suffice to Collabnet as assignment of copyright? 

No, at least in the US, copyright can only be assigned in writing.

>  Do I have a pledge from
> Collabnet that any code whose copyright is assigned in this way will
> remain freely
> available in perpetuity?

You haven't assigned copyright, so you can still do what you want with
your code.





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[Charles Bailey <ba...@gmail.com>]

On 23 Jun 2005 09:43:08 -0500, kfogel@collab.net <kf...@collab.net> wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org> writes:
> > You've asked two different questions.
> > The answer to the first is no, the second is yes.
> > :)
> > If you ask "has he assigned copyright to CollabNet", the answer is no.
> > Assignment of copyright is a "term of art", and has very specific meaning.
> >
> > If you ask "would this make any difference in a court of law given
> > what he has done", the answer is probably also no, because he'd
> > probably be estopped from asserting copyright infringement claims.
> >
> > However, not having assigned the code does mean he doesn't have to
> > worry about how CollabNet is going to license it, because he can still
> > do what he wants.
> 
> Thanks, perfectly clear.

Likewise, and fine with me.  What caught my attention the first time
out was that the stock statement in the source files says "Copyright
(c) 2000-2004 CollabNet.", which it wouldn't actually be without my
assigning copyright.   (I'd guess one could argue that by placing that
notice in text I submitted I was assigning copyright, but that'd be
hard to establish formally.)  I'm happy to use the boilerplate
(assuming, of course, that the patch is worth adding :-)) as current
convention, or to simply state that a perpetual license is granted to
CollabNet, or any user, to use the code with Subversion.

Even apart copyright assignment, I agree (as a non-attorney) with Mr.
Berlin that it'd be hard for someone who submitted a patch to
Subversion through the current review process to argue that there was
no intent for it to be incorporated into Subversion under its current
license for distribution, which is what I think it'd take to assert
copyright infringement based on inclusion in Subversion.  There might
be more of an argument over its inclusion in dervative works (since
the Subversion COPYING license isn't really clear about revocation and
severability), and moreso about inclusion in broadly unrelated works
by cutting-and-pasting from Subversion's sources, but I'd guess these
aren't things about which CollabNet's too worried.

-- 
Regards,
Charles Bailey
Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com
Other: bailey _at_ newman _dot_ upenn _dot_ edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[kf...@collab.net]

Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org> writes:
> You've asked two different questions.
> The answer to the first is no, the second is yes.
> :)
> If you ask "has he assigned copyright to CollabNet", the answer is no.
> Assignment of copyright is a "term of art", and has very specific meaning.
> 
> If you ask "would this make any difference in a court of law given
> what he has done", the answer is probably also no, because he'd
> probably be estopped from asserting copyright infringement claims.
> 
> However, not having assigned the code does mean he doesn't have to
> worry about how CollabNet is going to license it, because he can still
> do what he wants.

Thanks, perfectly clear.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2005 kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org> writes:
>>> Does
>>> that suffice to Collabnet as assignment of copyright?
>>
>> No, at least in the US, copyright can only be assigned in writing.
>
> Wait a minute: I thought in the past you'd said that email and bona
> fide belief of author's intent was sufficient to assign copyright?  Or
> maybe you meant, sufficient for CollabNet to proceed as if copyright
> had been assigned?

You've asked two different questions.
The answer to the first is no, the second is yes.
:)
If you ask "has he assigned copyright to CollabNet", the answer is no.
Assignment of copyright is a "term of art", and has very specific meaning.

If you ask "would this make any difference in a court of law given what he 
has done", the answer is probably also no, because he'd probably be 
estopped from asserting copyright infringement claims.

However, not having assigned the code does mean he doesn't have to 
worry about how CollabNet is going to license it, because he can still do 
what he wants.





>
> -K
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org> writes:
>>> Does
>>> that suffice to Collabnet as assignment of copyright?
>>
>> No, at least in the US, copyright can only be assigned in writing.
>
> Wait a minute: I thought in the past you'd said that email and bona
> fide belief of author's intent was sufficient to assign copyright?  Or
> maybe you meant, sufficient for CollabNet to proceed as if copyright
> had been assigned?

We're not worrying about assigning copyright; for the same reasons Apache 
does not.  All we legally need is the right to sublicense the code under 
the relevant license of the whole code base, in this case the Apache 1.1 
license.  We're considering submission of a patch or idea to this list or 
the bug databases, etc., as an expression of such a license.  We've known 
that we can and we should get a more formal CLA like Apache has, to 
protect against someone posting something here and then claiming later 
that we don't have the right to integrate what they posted into 
Subversion.

 	Brian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] Include offending XML in "Malformed XML" error message

[kf...@collab.net]

Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org> writes:
> > Does
> > that suffice to Collabnet as assignment of copyright? 
> 
> No, at least in the US, copyright can only be assigned in writing.

Wait a minute: I thought in the past you'd said that email and bona
fide belief of author's intent was sufficient to assign copyright?  Or
maybe you meant, sufficient for CollabNet to proceed as if copyright
had been assigned?

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org