RE: Re: Open Source Licensing

> > Given a license from the author: who is the owner of
> > a derived work?
>
> Absent a contract saying otherwise, the author of the
> derivative work is the owner of the derivative work.
> His rights may be limited by the
> terms of the license he received from the original author.
> /Larry Rosen

Your answer implies that a contract may override the licensee's rights on a derivative work.

However, the only references I found in Code and Treaties are that a licensee cannot make prejudice on the licensor rights. This is the formula, and the reason (given in the same texts) is that both licensor and licensee, are equally authors, and are equally protected by (C) Laws, on their respective versions.

I think this makes difference: only the Law may restrict rights. Is there any reference, even in US Code law, stating that a license may restrict the rights of licensees ?

IMHO, if a license really tries to limit the rights of licensees, then the license is not enforceable.
The holder of a derivative work is not a simply user, but an author with the same rights than the licensor rigths.

If a license try to restrict the rights of another author, this would be infringement... ?! :)

I agree to say that my argument is somehow theoretical. It is theoretical because the license is royalty-free. However, it is interesting to observe that this kind of infringement would only occur in some licenses who are reciprocal, or viral. Even if I share and strongly support the trend of open license(s), I believe some of them raise very important questions, and we need to go deeper on their issues.

IRM Received on Fri Aug 29 2003 - 19:30:40 GMT