From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Subhan Tindall Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Copyright/Distribution questions (Emacs/Orgmode) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:40:07 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87ober717z.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9iwcp.fsf@gmail.com> <87mwu9fiu0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1363106437 8250 80.91.229.3 (12 Mar 2013 16:40:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Jambunathan K , Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 12 17:41:01 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UFSG1-00068K-5s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:40:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48119 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFSFe-0007xY-Tb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:40:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45229) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFSFX-0007sX-Do for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:40:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFSFN-0004pa-Fb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:40:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]:59417) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UFSFN-0004i4-3A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:40:17 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fq12so49600lab.5 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=5gHL4H0spVVILZetwoka+7xzJQi9T+UO7u7L+LTcaFE=; b=Mu4QaVIZzdBc6nCYlV2pO6MzXod+ub3yOQWkF1KcWKEfpmFdllxgZbzH2bmEqPYOru +JbE3PI6T2rPejjVlUMSNNV3Liw/Z2k53Cd+LP441O/My2vPBRcP3mb5DUZ50rmSAg/n yKN6BSjEpdH1x1OpWsosLq3TGQBdSAMpY70dCzT6MmEn8S6gzHNdt/imtf2IyR2KenOy DtRtUDI4wc6gTw6o957KAa6DKTmG3A+3LzSctFAQ0ae9GCNuaeIMm+Xy36/awHBcH6WQ eTx9DK1lCY00wEF9Gh1MXxxy/IeTb4JMBl+mZJW6+tgFu0FssMAUepyj0/+Bfi6Kj743 T++Q== X-Received: by 10.112.37.234 with SMTP id b10mr6341183lbk.118.1363106407794; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.5.72 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:40:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mwu9fiu0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQleRQLJyGsioimKQBIbhbGm44maaGJuFTeP3PNzv7ONvHbKC9MB1m2Vj9x/XK/ZfjTCfrLi X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:157783 Archived-At: On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Subhan Tindall writes: > > > Ah, I may see your error here Jambunathan. Copyright becomes attached > > to a work the moment in time it is created (at least in the US), > > In any jurisdiction implementing the Berne Convention. True, my assumptions here are that US law are the dominant ones in this case. > > > and publication has no bearing on it's existence or assignment. > > The assignment of rights for "changes and enhancements to the > > program " covers the rights to created > > material from *the moment the code is written*, > > No, that's false. Copyright law knows nothing of whether the material > was written "to be part of", or even contains parts of, Emacs[1], and > therefore a generic assignment cannot cover code until it is > contributed *to* Emacs, explicitly by the author inserting a "part of > Emacs" statement, explicitly by substituting the FSF for himself in > the copyright notice, or (perhaps, I'm not sure what would happen if > you maintained your own copyright notice in this case) implicitly by > committing it personally to a repository of code (not necessarily a > VCS, but any archive) that is considered "part of Emacs." (You are > correct in that distribution of the code or presence in "the official" > Emacs repo are not necessary, of course.) > > For example, the FSF has no claim on my ~/.xemacs/init.el, though it > contains generic enhancements to XEmacs (the code base for which my > assignment was explicitly designated) that I will probably contribute > in the future. > > On the contrary, I could write an accounting program in 6502 > assembler, send appropriate documentation to the FSF copyright clerk > indicating that I consider it to be part of (my version of ;-) XEmacs, > and my assignment for that program would take effect. > > I don't claim that either of these extreme examples is at all similar > to the cases of ox-html and ox-odt. Again, all true, *copyright* law does not hold any concept of intent. However, the *assignment of copyright* in the FSF contract does cary an implication of intent. The 'reasonable person' standard of determining intent would be potentially relevant here as follows: 1) work is created - copyright (in US) immediately comes into existence 2) previously signed FSF copyright assignment form potentially transfers copyright for works created to be included in X 3) question: was work created with intent to be included in X? if so, than transfer in 2) applies 4) if disputed, one important test to apply is the 'reasonable person' standard - what would a reasonable person judge the intent in 1) to be? Example. I sign a copyright assignment form in order to work on project X. I then write code to enhance or fix errors in X. A reasonable person would most likely determine that my intent was add this code to project X, therefore my copyright was transferred upon it's creation as part of the contract I signed. > > > A similar situation is a work made for hire. > > Yes, it is similar to a work made for hire in that the scope of the > work for hire is specified, either in a standalone contract, or by > order of your employer. > > Jambunathan is claiming that he has not yet designated this work as > within the scope of Emacs, but he may be ignorant of the legal > implications of committing code to certain repositories. On the other > hand, a court might construe his ignorance to mean that no intent to > contribute was present. I think that's strained; at the present time > org-mode code is "tracked" to be included in Emacs and I suppose he > knew that when he committed. But AFAIK -- IANAL/TINLA -- a court > *might* be sympathetic to him. Again, see 'reasonable person' standard. > > > For example, I work on many programs for my employer. As part of > > my contract, all copyright for that work is ceded to my employer. > > Correct in the U.S., I believe, but that is an employment contract, > and a quite different matter, because it covers *your professional > activities* and the product *of those activities* (in some cases, 24 > hours a day whether on premises or not). An assignment of Emacs code, > extant and to be written, to the FSF is *not* an employment contract. > It is merely a convenient way to perform an indefinite number of > assignments with one signature (at least, that's what my lawyer told > me). Not so different. The FSF copyright assignment is a legally binding contract, and should be treated as such. It's not just a convenience. > > > Footnotes: > [1] Of course the "parts of Emacs" are presumably copyright FSF, *but > the changes and enhancements are not* (yet). > -- Subhan Michael Tindall | Software Developer | smt@rentrakmail.com RENTRAK | www.rentrak.com | NASDAQ: RENT