Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Compilation Copyrights

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Garrett Goebel

unread,
Oct 18, 2005, 4:27:34 PM10/18/05
to Nicholas Clark, Mark A. Biggar, Joshua Hoblitt, Allison Randal, Perl 6 Internals
Allison Randal wrote:
>
> So, with Perl 5, Larry is the compilation owner. The problem with that
> is it makes Larry personally liable for any action brought against
> Perl (not that that would ever happen, we hope), and a successful suit
> could take his house, his car, his savings, etc. (not that that would
> ever happen, we hope). With Perl 6/Parrot we decided putting the
> burden of liability on the foundation is a better way to do it. That
> way the worst that can happen in a legal action is that someone can
> take the (limited) resources of TPF (not that that will ever happen,
> we hope).

It's likely just ignorance on my part, but the mention of a compilation
copyright sounds like a new thing.

Licensing etc. may be considered off-topic for this list. If so, please
direct me to the appropriate forum. Hopefully not /dev/null...


Where is Larry attributed as the compilation owner of Perl 5?

Does a compilation copyright exist even if it isn't asserted or registered?

Wouldn't the Pumpking of each Perl distribution be its compilation copyright
owner?

Can you name any other open source projects that make use of compilation
copyrights?

Why does TPF or any open source project need a "compilation copyright"? I.e.
why aren't the copyrights on the contributed works enough?

How specifically would the TPF and/or compilation copyrights limit the
liability of individual source code contributors?

How well are compilation copyrights respected internationally?

What do compilation copyrights really get us? I.e. What are the pro's and
con's of compilation copyrights for all parties involved: contributors, TPF,
users, derivative works, re-compilation, and redistribution. Where parties
include the non-commerical vs commerical and open source vs propietary
angles.


I'm not an IP nazi. I come from the keep it as simple as practical school.
Berkeley and MIT have pretty good lawyers. If the BSDs can be distributed
with significantly simpler copyrights and licenses... why do we need to make
things more complicated? NIH syndrome?

That said, from a quick googling, it looks like copyright licensing issues
revolving around combined, joint, collective, compilation, and derivative
works _are_ complicated. Indeed there's a strong difference of opinion on
whether the GPL applies to combined works, and whether or not that
constitutes misuse of copyright. Creative Commons share-alike licenses don't
try to extend to combined works. Legal + complex = yech... Do we really need
to go there?

From my cursory reading on collective copyrights, they afford protection
against copyright infringement only on those creative aspects of how the
compilation was assembled and the contributed works where all rights were
transferred. I don't see any mention anywhere of how compilation copyrights
can protect contributions for which the individual contributors copyrights
have been reserved, or those contributors from liability claims.

In trying to come up to speed, I've found the following useful:

http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/259_F3d_065.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/283_F3d_502.htm

--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist

ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008
Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180
www.scriptpro.com gar...@scriptpro.com

0 new messages