|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
Contributors do not surrender their copyright.
If an non employee submitted code, they still "own" and can contribute
it elsewhere, unless they wrote the code on behalf of their employer, who would
own it and be free to use it elsewhere.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
...does not mean original copyright. So public domain stays
public domain.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
You hereby grant to each Spec Lead (and, if different,
Maintenance
Lead)
Looks like it goes to the spec lead. Presumably whoever
these a lot of these people are, they no longer work for
Sun. It seems few
people have stayed :)
Anyway, IANAL, but AFAIK the
motion for judgement appears to
be based on the SSO concept - Nobody has a
copyright on the
SSO of the 37, as they don't exist as an actual entity in
their own right.
I think that if Oracle had detailed
records on the
registration of copyright on each of the 37 APIs
individually,
then they could have sued for them
individually, but they don't, and they
didn't, and anyway
the SSO argument would be out the window, so it would be a
literal copying issue, which there is effectively none
of.
If they had sued for the entire set of APIs, then
the
proportion of infringement of the works would be a smaller
fraction, as
the work isn't fully copied, and the SSO is
necessarily different, so that
doesn't count.
If I understand this right (possibly
not), Oracle are
between a rock and a hard place with this motion, and I
can't
see how any amount of wrangling will make them much
more comfortable. Their
arguments and registrations seem to
be fundamentally at odds.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
