You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucy.apache.org by Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> on 2012/12/23 01:59:21 UTC
[lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright
question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software
Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement,
there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of
copyright.
http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ...
that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the
SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to
contribute the software source code and other related intellectual
property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer
to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is
made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they
have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a
recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements
where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
--nate
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
> I guess my question can be rephrased as: Through what legal means is
> the collective copyright of Lucy (and other Apache projects)
> transferred to the ASF? The quote was to show that there needs to be
> an express transfer of rights from the authors to the ASF, and not
> simply the granting of a license.
>
> Alternatively phrased, how would a court know that the ASF, and not
> for example RightHaven, has legal standing to sue for redress of
> copyright violations? Generally, this is only possibly by the
> copyright holder, and not by a license holder. Is there some transfer
> of rights outside of the licenses granted by the CLA or SGA?
>
> I use RightHaven as an example, not only because they are the
> antithesis of the ASF, but since they recently were judged not to
> have standing to sue on behalf of a copyright holder[1]. Reading that
> decision, I'm wondering how the ASF would go about proving to a judge
> that they have legal standing.
>
> But this is way off-topic for Lucy, so I'll try to find another venue
> to ask, or will happily take answers offline.
Interesting question. You might want to try legal-discuss@a.o.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-legal
Here are some pages in which I searched fruitlessly for an answer to your
question, including the relevant FAQs for legal-discuss:
http://www.apache.org/legal/
http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
FWIW, since the Apache license permits proprietary forks, the ASF might have
fewer motivations to sue somebody than the FSF -- at least for copyright.
(Trademarks are important to the ASF because it would be bad if a proprietary
forker could sow confusion about which product was canonical.)
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I should also point out that it may
depend on the nature of the infringement
to determine whether or not Apache
can sue over it. For instance if
someone simply cribs your contribution
to lucy in violation of the license
Apache offered it under, that may be
a different circumstance then if someone
illegally subjugates the entire Lucy product.
In reality tho Apache is unlikely to sue
anybody anyway as we are doing are damnedest
to make the license terms as light as possible.
But before you can sue anybody for copyright infringement
you need to register your work with the Library
of Congress, which we've never done, although
Larry Rosen has broached the subject several times
now. There's no immediate reason to do so
as that can be accomplished any time prior to
a suit, but there you go.
>________________________________
> From: Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>To: "dev@lucy.apache.org" <de...@lucy.apache.org>
>Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>
>> To: dev@lucy.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
>>
>> I agree, there is no contradiction, and I appreciate your answers.
>> It's likely my lack of knowledge likely makes my questions hard to
>> understand. :)
>>
>> I guess my question can be rephrased as: Through what legal means is
>> the collective copyright of Lucy (and other Apache projects)
>> transferred to the ASF?
>
>This doesn't make sense. Let's not talk about software but about
>books. Some books are just a collection of articles written by
>different authors and published by someone who has acquired the
>necessary rights to publish those articles into this particular
>book. Both the publisher and the individual authors have standing
>in court to sue someone for copyright violations that may arise
>as a result of this publication.
>
>With Lucy the ASF is the analog of the publisher of the collection
>of articles. The ASF has the legal right to offer this collection
>via the ICLA from the individual authors.
>
>> The quote was to show that there needs to be
>> an express transfer of rights from the authors to the ASF, and not
>> simply the granting of a license.
>
>No, you're just misreading the quote. The quote limits the rights
>of a collected work publisher, who under normal circumstances only requires
>explicit permission to use an individual author's copyrighted material.
>Such publishers for example do not enjoy the right to produce derivative
>works of the individual authors' works merely by obtaining the minimal
>rights necessary to produce a collective work.
>
>However the ICLA is much stronger than what copyright law already covers.
>The ASF has a non-exclusive license to exercise every aspect of what
>copyright law normally covers, including the right to produce derivative
>works and collective works based on ICLA-covered contributions.
>
>>
>> Alternatively phrased, how would a court know that the ASF, and not
>> for example RightHaven, has legal standing to sue for redress of
>> copyright violations? Generally, this is only possibly by the
>> copyright holder, and not by a license holder. Is there some transfer
>> of rights outside of the licenses granted by the CLA or SGA?
>
>You're failing to understand the role of a collective work and how
>it related to the composite individual efforts. I'm sorry I can't
>explain this any better than I already have, so I suggest trying
>legal-discuss@a.o for further discussion.
>
>>
>> I use RightHaven as an example, not only because they are the
>> antithesis of the ASF, but since they recently were judged not to
>> have standing to sue on behalf of a copyright holder[1]. Reading that
>> decision, I'm wondering how the ASF would go about proving to a judge
>> that they have legal standing.
>>
>> But this is way off-topic for Lucy, so I'll try to find another venue
>> to ask, or will happily take answers offline. Apologies for the
>> interruption.
>>
>> --nate
>>
>> [1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/14
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand
>> the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the
>> ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I
>> guess
>>>> that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim
>>>> copyright in the collected work?
>>>>
>>>> 17 USC § 201 (c) 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."
>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
>>>>
>>>> This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there
>>>> additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred
>>>> this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the
>>>> ASF mandatory copywrite notice?
>>>>
>>>> --nate
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
>> <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual
>> authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a
>> transgressor may be sued by both parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only
>> copyright
>>>>>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The
>> Apache Software
>>>>>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
>>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant
>> Agreement,
>>>>>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than
>> assignments of
>>>>>> copyright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original
>> work of authorship ...
>>>>>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the
>> Foundation", and the
>>>>>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient
>> rights to
>>>>>> contribute the software source code and other related
>> intellectual
>>>>>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses
>> only refer
>>>>>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can
>> see is
>>>>>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do
>> they
>>>>>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments
>> on a
>>>>>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment
>> requirements
>>>>>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
>>>>>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --nate
>>
>
>
>
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>
> To: dev@lucy.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
>
> I agree, there is no contradiction, and I appreciate your answers.
> It's likely my lack of knowledge likely makes my questions hard to
> understand. :)
>
> I guess my question can be rephrased as: Through what legal means is
> the collective copyright of Lucy (and other Apache projects)
> transferred to the ASF?
This doesn't make sense. Let's not talk about software but about
books. Some books are just a collection of articles written by
different authors and published by someone who has acquired the
necessary rights to publish those articles into this particular
book. Both the publisher and the individual authors have standing
in court to sue someone for copyright violations that may arise
as a result of this publication.
With Lucy the ASF is the analog of the publisher of the collection
of articles. The ASF has the legal right to offer this collection
via the ICLA from the individual authors.
> The quote was to show that there needs to be
> an express transfer of rights from the authors to the ASF, and not
> simply the granting of a license.
No, you're just misreading the quote. The quote limits the rights
of a collected work publisher, who under normal circumstances only requires
explicit permission to use an individual author's copyrighted material.
Such publishers for example do not enjoy the right to produce derivative
works of the individual authors' works merely by obtaining the minimal
rights necessary to produce a collective work.
However the ICLA is much stronger than what copyright law already covers.
The ASF has a non-exclusive license to exercise every aspect of what
copyright law normally covers, including the right to produce derivative
works and collective works based on ICLA-covered contributions.
>
> Alternatively phrased, how would a court know that the ASF, and not
> for example RightHaven, has legal standing to sue for redress of
> copyright violations? Generally, this is only possibly by the
> copyright holder, and not by a license holder. Is there some transfer
> of rights outside of the licenses granted by the CLA or SGA?
You're failing to understand the role of a collective work and how
it related to the composite individual efforts. I'm sorry I can't
explain this any better than I already have, so I suggest trying
legal-discuss@a.o for further discussion.
>
> I use RightHaven as an example, not only because they are the
> antithesis of the ASF, but since they recently were judged not to
> have standing to sue on behalf of a copyright holder[1]. Reading that
> decision, I'm wondering how the ASF would go about proving to a judge
> that they have legal standing.
>
> But this is way off-topic for Lucy, so I'll try to find another venue
> to ask, or will happily take answers offline. Apologies for the
> interruption.
>
> --nate
>
> [1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/14
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand
> the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the
> ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I
> guess
>>> that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim
>>> copyright in the collected work?
>>>
>>> 17 USC § 201 (c) 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."
>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
>>>
>>> This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there
>>> additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred
>>> this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the
>>> ASF mandatory copywrite notice?
>>>
>>> --nate
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual
> authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a
> transgressor may be sued by both parties.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only
> copyright
>>>>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>>>>>
>>>>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The
> Apache Software
>>>>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
>>>>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>>>
>>>>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant
> Agreement,
>>>>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than
> assignments of
>>>>> copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original
> work of authorship ...
>>>>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the
> Foundation", and the
>>>>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient
> rights to
>>>>> contribute the software source code and other related
> intellectual
>>>>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses
> only refer
>>>>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can
> see is
>>>>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do
> they
>>>>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments
> on a
>>>>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment
> requirements
>>>>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
>>>>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>>>>>
>>>>> --nate
>
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>.
I agree, there is no contradiction, and I appreciate your answers.
It's likely my lack of knowledge likely makes my questions hard to
understand. :)
I guess my question can be rephrased as: Through what legal means is
the collective copyright of Lucy (and other Apache projects)
transferred to the ASF? The quote was to show that there needs to be
an express transfer of rights from the authors to the ASF, and not
simply the granting of a license.
Alternatively phrased, how would a court know that the ASF, and not
for example RightHaven, has legal standing to sue for redress of
copyright violations? Generally, this is only possibly by the
copyright holder, and not by a license holder. Is there some transfer
of rights outside of the licenses granted by the CLA or SGA?
I use RightHaven as an example, not only because they are the
antithesis of the ASF, but since they recently were judged not to
have standing to sue on behalf of a copyright holder[1]. Reading that
decision, I'm wondering how the ASF would go about proving to a judge
that they have legal standing.
But this is way off-topic for Lucy, so I'll try to find another venue
to ask, or will happily take answers offline. Apologies for the
interruption.
--nate
[1] https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/06/14
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I guess
>> that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim
>> copyright in the collected work?
>>
>> 17 USC § 201 (c) 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."
>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
>>
>> This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there
>> additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred
>> this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the
>> ASF mandatory copywrite notice?
>>
>> --nate
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a transgressor may be sued by both parties.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright
>>>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>>>>
>>>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software
>>>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
>>>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>>
>>>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement,
>>>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of
>>>> copyright.
>>>>
>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>
>>>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ...
>>>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the
>>>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to
>>>> contribute the software source code and other related intellectual
>>>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer
>>>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is
>>>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>>>>
>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>>
>>>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they
>>>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>>>>
>>>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a
>>>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements
>>>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
>>>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>>>>
>>>> --nate
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
That section doesn't contradict what I wrote, so I don't understand the question. The only contract you have with the ASF as a committer is the ICLA, which is a licensing agreement not a transfer of ownership.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 22, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
> Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I guess
> that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim
> copyright in the collected work?
>
> 17 USC § 201 (c) 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."
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
>
> This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there
> additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred
> this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the
> ASF mandatory copywrite notice?
>
> --nate
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a transgressor may be sued by both parties.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright
>>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>>>
>>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software
>>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
>>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>>
>>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement,
>>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of
>>> copyright.
>>>
>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>
>>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ...
>>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the
>>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to
>>> contribute the software source code and other related intellectual
>>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer
>>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is
>>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>>>
>>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>>
>>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they
>>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>>>
>>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a
>>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements
>>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
>>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>>>
>>> --nate
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com>.
Interesting, I hadn't realized that was the approach taken. I guess
that leads to a followup question: on what basis does the ASF claim
copyright in the collected work?
17 USC § 201 (c) 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."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201
This transfer does not seem to occur in the CLA or SGA. Were there
additional documents I'm not recalling that explicitly transferred
this ownership? Are these required for each project that carries the
ASF mandatory copywrite notice?
--nate
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a transgressor may be sued by both parties.
>
> HTH
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright
>> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>>
>> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software
>> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
>> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>>
>> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement,
>> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of
>> copyright.
>>
>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>
>> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ...
>> that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the
>> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to
>> contribute the software source code and other related intellectual
>> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer
>> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is
>> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>>
>> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>>
>> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they
>> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>>
>> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a
>> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements
>> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
>> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>>
>> --nate
Re: [lucy-dev] Copyright confusion
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
ASF has copyright on the collected work known as Lucy. Individual authors maintain copyright over their contributions. In court it means a transgressor may be sued by both parties.
HTH
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 22, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Nathan Kurz <na...@verse.com> wrote:
> I have a simple non-urgent for-intellectual-curiosity-only copyright
> question regarding Lucy: who is the copyright holder for Lucy?
>
> In our NOTICE file, it says "Copyright 2010-2012 The Apache Software
> Foundation", as required by the ASF guidelines:
> http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> But in the Contributor License Agreement and Software Grant Agreement,
> there appear to be only a grants of license rather than assignments of
> copyright.
>
> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> The CLA defines "Contribution" as "any original work of authorship ...
> that is intentionally submitted by You to the Foundation", and the
> SGA requires that the "Licensor owns or has sufficient rights to
> contribute the software source code and other related intellectual
> property", but as I read them, the legally binding clauses only refer
> to granting of non-exclusive licenses. No mention that I can see is
> made of assigning copyright to the ASF.
>
> http://apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> http://apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> So: is the ASF the copyright owner or a licensee? That is, do they
> have legal standing to seek remedy for license violations?
>
> I have no dog in this fight, but was confused by some comments on a
> recent article describing the FSF copyright assignment requirements
> where it was asserted that the ASF does have this requirement:
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4956998
>
> --nate