Licensing change: Audacious - GPLv3 --> BSD

[Seth Johnson]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:57:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Saying things like:
>>
>> "and arbitrary other people, who get their patch contributions merged,
>> don't gain any copyright protection on the file or the proper parts of
>> it,"
>>
>> is inaccurate and dangerous. It's entirely appropriate to indicate that
>> it's untrue.
>
> I wrote that in the context of files giving credit to *some* people [*],
> which could (!) be an indication that any _unknown_ changes, which other
> people may have managed to get included in those files, likely have not
> been considered substantial enough to qualify for copyright.


Michael, please stop with this.  Copyright is automatic under Berne.
Whether it "qualifies" is not up to people deciding whether unknown
contributors' contributions are "substantial" enough.  You're
describing an entirely impractical mode of approach.  Whatever some
group of "recognized contributors" might think, any contributor can
bring suit because their code is included.  The way to go about it is
to recognize it, not constantly try to rationalize a bizarre notion
where you get to decide it.  Making the determinations you keep
bringing up, even in court, is not a very clear legal matter.  Just
recognize the point -- people who contribute code to a GPL'd project
(or any project) automatically have a copyright claim, and you work on
that basis, just like any other project contemplating changing their
license does.


Seth



> It could even
> be that the submitters did not consider the patches substantial enough
> themselves. That's speculation, I don't like it. But it has been only a
> question to Petr, because there are lots of files in Audacious that give
> credit. I've never asked to be credited but have been mentioned
> nevertheless, and I can only guess what "work" has been recognized.
> I would not claim rights on tiny patches and bug-fixes another developer
> could come up with, too, even if a copyright law pedant would claim that I
> could.
>
> [*] Those people believe they do most of the original work to qualify
> for copyright.
>
>> > It boils down to some forms of etiquette, whether and when main project
>> > developers recognize contributed patches as substantial and automatically
>> > give proper credits *before* a copyright holder wants to enforce rights.
>>
>> It boils down to copyright law. Nothing more. Nothing less. Project
>> maintainers simply don't get to make that choice on behalf of others.
>
> Sure they do. We can go on endlessly. They can reject copying something
> verbatim, and they may change the code nevertheless in either the same or
> a very similar way. Coincidentally or because it's an obvious way (and
> no patented stuf, hey!). Then somebody else would need to decide whether
> copyright law is applicable.
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel