Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

Between the various components of WineX now known as Cedega, three
different licenses are used.  The Aladdin License, the GNU LGPL, and
Transgaming's own Rewind license which doesn't address derivative works
at all.  Nadav - I hate to break it to you, but a contributor's patch
and everything it constitutes under the licenses which cover the
entirety of Cedega, is legal copyright of the author regardless of
whether they advertise it or not.  On a side note, advertisement of work
does not void any legal copyright.  That's like saying you're painting
is no longer copyright because it was published in a magazine.  Any
patches are considered derivative works if they use ANY of the WineX
includes, libraries, or other source found within.  These licenses grant
the user the right to release their derivative work ... the patch,
provided that it is released under the same license which the component
being patched is released.  So as a matter of fact, any patch you write
and send to Transgaming is *LEGALLY* yours and copyright by YOU. 
However, under the licenses provided, it has to remain licensed in a
fashion that TG can re-derive your work and re-release it giving you due
credit in the source... That does not change the legal copyright holder
of the code, it simply removes the copyright holder's right to restrict
use of their patch.  But *no action* under the licenses of Cedega will
void an author's legal ownership and copyright of the code produced, it
only limits the power they have with that ownership *and* copyright.

http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1




On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 04:03, Nadav Frum wrote:

> I don't think any of you understand.  The person who is taking the risk is 
> the person advertising the patch.  He/she have invested an effort into 
> producing the patch, not knowing that by advertising the patch they lose 
> all legal rights to the effort invested.
> 
> I understand the indignant response presented by Bryan and Keef.  It makes 
> more sense to believe you own something.  It is irresponsible of TG to 
> mislead people in this way.
> 
> If you wish to advertise your patches because you want to share your work 
> with others and get some credit for it, please do so.  If you want to 
> maintain ownership over your work, the best way is not to advertise it in 
> a patch to someone else's code.
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
> 
> > Nadav,
> > 
> > To finish this whole thing off, you are right... it's not practical to
> > prove yourself and your patch.It would certainly be extremely
> > difficult to bring a case to a judge.That doesn't mean your work isn't
> > copyrightable, it just means you can't prove you did it in the first
> > place.Just like the murder analogy that Bryan gave earlier.  None the
> > less, the law is the law and your work is always - always
> > copyrightable... you just may not be able to prove it's your work when
> > it comes down to it - that doesn't void the law.It just leaves you
> > with no case to present.
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 Rob Crittenden wrote:
>                                                                                 
> > This is a pointless discussion. Nobody here is a lawyer nor have they
> > professed intimiate knowledge of International Copyright law. Merely
> > believing that it is ok is not enough for the "judge," as you say.
> >
> > Regardless, Transgaming simply is not going to apply this patch. You can
> > argue about it all you want but they not going to change their mind, so
> > please just drop it.
> 
> For my part, I could not care less about the specific patch mentioned 
> at the start of this discussion.  I don't even know what application 
> Jeroen Janssen was referring to.  Does anybody care if this patch is 
> applied or not? 
> 
> > The risk is all theirs, not yours. I commend them for being careful and
> > conscious of the intention of the patch author. There are lots of folks
> > who wouldn't be very pleased if TG started incorporating patches intended
> > for the wine project.
> 
> There must be an understanding, then.  Do you represent these folks?  Do 
> you represent TG?
> 
> > Has anyone bothered to contact the patch author to see if he cared whether
> > it was included in Cedega?
> 
> I don't think this discussion is about the specific author or his patch.  
> If TG wanted to fix the problem they could simply go ahead and do it.  If 
> I understand it correctly the function itself takes a relative path, 
> searches for it, and returns the full path.
> 
> Nadav Frum
> ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Keef Aragon <[email protected]>