Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

** Forgot to Send to entire list - also one point here is that I use
license loosely, also referring to developer agreements and such.. i.e.
"By submitting your patch you are rendering TG the right to use your
code, blah blah blah"


This is precisely my point.  The XFree86 project has to do with
contributors in general.  The fact of the matter is that ANY code one
writes is copyrightable period, and can be enforced unless it is written
under a license which prevents that.  If TG doesn't have a clause in
their license which gives them the right to use your code at their will
(which I believe they do) then they can't and you own it.  Granted, the
final result here is the same if TG wrote their license appropriately
but there are no loopholes in the law that say "if you patch someone's
code and they need your patch, you don't own your patch."  Just because
I patch YOUR code doesn't mean you own my patch unless I agreed to give
rights to you upon writing it, which in theory, can be enforced through
a clause in the license... This is the situation here.  Bryan was right
though:

You *can* be forced to use an inferior solution, if you can't come up
with an independent implementation that's not considered a derivative
work.

Though Software license agreements, to date, have not been used as a
basis for any legal action, the central idea of US copyright law is that
any material that an individual party produces is under their own
copyright unless they render that right to another party or to the
general public... which in this case, a specially crafted license can
theoretically force one to do.

On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 07:06, Nadav Frum wrote: 

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
> 
> > That is not necessarily true.A contributor of a patch does, in fact,
> > own copyright to the code which their patch creates.This is why
> > several features are unavailable in XFree86 as some contributors chose
> > to revoke their code with the license change and move over to X11.org
> > which remains on GPL.However, if you write a patch for a chunk of code
> > under a license like the GPL, which addresses derivative works, your
> > patch is bound to the GPL as well.While you hold full ownership and
> > copyright of the code, under the terms of the GPL, you are required to
> > oblige to the license being used in code being patched...Which in the
> > case of the GPL (can I type GPL one more time? :-) ), means that while
> > you own your code, it has to be releasedunder the GPL with all of the
> > necessary comments and/or documentation, etc,And users can use and
> > derive from your work all they want because your patch must be kept
> > open, as long as they too, use the GPL.
> > 
> > Keef Aragon
> 
> I am not a legal expert and no one should use what I write as definitive 
> legal advice without checking their particular circumstances with a legal 
> expert.
> 
> My legal comments are specific to the case originally presented here.  If 
> a company such as TG produces a body of work, it has the right to fix bugs 
> in that work and implement functions which were not meant to remain 
> unimplemented.  No patch of yours can take away that right from them.  
> Neither are they obliged to deviate from your way of implementing 
> something in their code simply because you were in a position to implement 
> that something before them.
> 
> Most patches do precisely that.  They fix unintentional bugs or implement 
> missing functionality which would probably have been implemented in 
> future.
> 
> Your XFree86 example, I assume, relates to work done to produce a 
> distinct product.  The people who contributed to producing that product 
> may have copyright over parts of that product which they were responsible 
> for.  Point2Play is a product which may be packaged with Cedega.  If you 
> were to produce a different GUI you could claim copyright over your GUI.  
> But you cannot stop TG from fixing their GUI.
> 
> Copyright does exist in many situations, but it does not apply in every 
> situation.  In particular, copyright does not apply when it is impractical 
> to enforce it.  
> 
> Nadav Frum
> ----------


-- 

Keef Aragon <[email protected]>