SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best
- To: slug <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Which open source license is best
- From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 11:08:17 +1000
- User-agent: Mutt/220.127.116.11+cvs20040105i
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 10:56:00AM +1000, Ken Foskey wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 09:40, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> > I don't think it makes sense to "assign ... copyright under dual
> > licensing."
> You as author can assign copyright "for use" to multiple parties. I
That's a permissive licence grant to each of those parties. It's not
assignment of copyright over the work. If you had actually assigned
copyright to one of those parties, you would have not had the right to
"assign" it to any other parties subsequent (absent a licence grant to do so
from the now-copyright holder of the work).
>From my understanding, there can only be one copyright holder over a
specific creative work. When two or more entities both claim copyright
over a work, they're actually claiming rights over different parts of the
work. Identifying whose parts are whose isn't always possible, but that's
not an issue in the case under discussion.
"We are peaking sexually when they are peaking. And two peaks makes a hell
of a good mount."