Re: Standing on multi-authored works

--- "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is easily verified that code whose
> copyright is[1] owned
> by an agency of the Japanese government is part of
> Emacs, "licensed to
> the FSF".

Such a non-exclusive license might give the FSF the
right to copy, distribute, etc the Mule code. 
However, it would not necessarily give them standing
to assert an infringement claim, especially where the
only infringement was distribution of the Mule code in
particular, rather than Emacs as a whole.

> As a legal proposition, that's false: licenses and
> assignments are
> different.  "Effectively" is a matter of opinion; I
> disagree.  

How about "there is little to no difference in effect,
under U.S. copyright law?" I would venture that the
only effective difference between an exclusive license
and an assignment is the length of a license term.  

For instance, A gives B a perpetual,  exclusive
license to all rights in the work.  How is that
different from A assigning to B all rights in the
work?

Without a license back, both involve A giving up the
same rights in the work ('exclusive' applies to
exclude the author as well), unlike a non-exclusive
license.

Both are treated as transfers, unlike a non-exclusive
license.

Both give B the right to assert infringement claims,
unlike a non-exclusive license.  

Even the distinction based on term can be blurred. For
instance, A gives B an assignment of all rights in the
work, with an automatic reversion after a period of
time.  How is that different from A giving B an
exclusive license for the same period of time?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com