Re: [[email protected]: Re: [sork] About license of sork modules]

[Cc'ed to original recipients since it seemed likely not all follow
debian-legal]

Gregory Colpart writes:

> Chuck, I forward to debian-legal list, best place for license
> experts.
> 
> debian-legal people, find first post of this thread here :
> http://lists.horde.org/archives/sork/Week-of-Mon-20060424/002560.html
> 
> 
> From: Chuck Hagenbuch <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [sork] About license of sork modules
> To: Gregory Colpart <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected],
> 	Eric Rostetter <[email protected]>,
> 	[email protected]
> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:08:30 -0400
> 
> 
> Quoting Gregory Colpart <[email protected]>:
> 
> >Perhaps, I should ask this in all (core|drivers) developers listed
> >in CREDITS file (but copyright in LICENSE file is for "The Horde
> >Project" and copyright in PHP files are for Eric Rostetter).
> 
> Well, you guys are the license experts, so you tell us: does the  
> stated copyright in the license and code trump individual contributors  
> if there's no paper (or email) trail of copyright assignment?

This probably varies slightly from country to country, but at least in
the USA, copyright is not automatically transferred like this.  If the
work is done "for hire", the employer is the original copyright
holder.  If a written agreement assigning the specific copyright(s)
exists, it is binding.  A written but purportedly implied agreement is
insufficient, as are verbal or non-specific agreements.  In the
absence of details, it is hard to say which applies in this case; but
unless the employer is asking in the context of an employee's paid
work, a copyright assignment is the safe bet.

Michael Poole