http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc
In the United States, *exclusive* copyright can only be transferred by an explicit written and signed agreement. Non-exclusive rights can be transferred by whatever form of contract you wish (aural, written, implied, etc.). This means that if you send code to a project with a published statement like this, they can redistribute your code under the terms of their statement. But, they can not prohibit you from doing what you wish with your code, because you still own the copyright.
Unfortunately, retracting the rights you granted through your implied agreement is difficult, if not impossible.
One other thing I wanted to point out is that Dan is not releasing different sections of the program under different licenses. Blacklists are data files, not program code. The entire program is licensed under GPL, but Dan has tried to create a situation where you can only obtain the program for free if you are using it for non-commercial purposes. What he is doing is legitimate, just very messy.
~Bradley
Jon Pruente wrote:
Under GLP V2 Sec.2, he can release the program with GPL sections and non-GPL sections. I'm not familiar with DG but if there are clearly separate non-GLP sections (ie, the blacklist, etc) then he has a full right to ask for limitations of copying those. If contributions are sent to him without GPL notices, then he might have the right to include them in non-GLP sections of DG, but under what terms, I'm not sure. If he makes it clear that submissions are to be treated in such a manner and someone sends it to him anyway, then he might have legal grounds. If someone knowingly sends non-GLP modifications to him after he has clearly posted his intentions on how to handle them, I don't see a conflict with the GPL. If they send GLP modifications to him and he ignores the GPL requirements, then he's got issues. How many people really take the time to put the GPL notice on a quick hack or mod? If you don't, and it's not a mod to GPL portions of the code, you are at likely the mercy of whatever rights the receiver wants to claim (if they are claimed in advance, I'm sure).
Jon.
On 12/13/06, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
It's not the GPL that is muddy. It is statements such as (c) and the following;
Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also helping others who get the software for free."
There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or legal, but it's at least common-place. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug