License
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: how to enlarger Java heap size?
Next: JTable: how to change properties of a component located in a cell
From: markspace on 19 Sep 2009 14:16 John Leonard wrote: >> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the >> copyright notice, you've violated the law. > > I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. I think it does. Your modifications become a "derivative work" and the rights to a derivative work stay with the original rights holder. That would be Sun, as clearly stated at the very top of the comments block. You still have the right to USE it under the license Sun granted you (GPL/CDDL), but Sun OWNS it. And I'm not a lawyer either, so caveat emptor. In short: do you really want to bet the company that your GUESS is correct?
From: Arne Vajhøj on 19 Sep 2009 14:18 RedGrittyBrick wrote: > John Leonard wrote: >>> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the >>> copyright notice, you've violated the law. >> >> I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. > > But the source of any derivative work (your application) must be made > freely[1] available under the same licence (GPL). > > Any user of your application has the legal right to demand the source > code from you. But there is a big difference between GPL and CDDL: GPL => source code off entire app CDDL => only the source code that is copied/modified from this And it is only if distributed outside your own organization. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 19 Sep 2009 14:22 markspace wrote: > John Leonard wrote: >>> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the >>> copyright notice, you've violated the law. >> >> I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. > > I think it does. Your modifications become a "derivative work" and the > rights to a derivative work stay with the original rights holder. That > would be Sun, as clearly stated at the very top of the comments block. Where do you read that? Such a claim would be in violation of both GPL and CDDL. They are based on that you retain copyright of your code, but that your license for their code is only valid if you grant other certain rights. Arne
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 14:29 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:16:01 -0700, markspace <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > John Leonard wrote: >>> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the >>> copyright notice, you've violated the law. >> I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. > > I think it does. Your modifications become a "derivative work" and the > rights to a derivative work stay with the original rights holder. That > would be Sun, as clearly stated at the very top of the comments block. > > You still have the right to USE it under the license Sun granted you > (GPL/CDDL), but Sun OWNS it. > > And I'm not a lawyer either, so caveat emptor. In short: do you really > want to bet the company that your GUESS is correct? I agree that to know the answer, one needs to consult a lawyer. But, as long as we're speculating to the best of our understanding... I don't believe that your interpretation is correct. The copyright notice applies to the code that Sun provided. There's no prohibition on the contributors adding their own copyright notice, nor anything that suggests that ownership of copyright of contributed code is transferred to Sun. To some extent, this is all moot, because the license is designed to allow reuse of the original and contributed code. But, should someone violate the license (e.g. by reusing it without providing access to their modifications), there would be multiple copyright holders with standing to file suit; Sun for their original code that was reused in violation of the license, and any contributor whose modifications were reused in violation of the license. I am not even sure it's possible for a software license to transfer copyright ownership. As this particular license notes, the extent of its authority is to put limits on the reuse of the previous authors' own works (i.e. Sun and any contributors that came before a given contributor). It cannot control the rights related to the contributor's own work, other than to dictate distribution of that derivative work in the context of the original work. Transfer of ownership would require a signed document, which the license explicitly acknowledges doesn't exist. Copyright law is full of pitfalls, and there are plenty of examples of entitites that seem to think that their copyright ownership grants them a far wider range of control over their copyrighted work than it really does (I'm reminded of building owners who claim copyright ownership of any photographs taken within the building). But that sort of thinking is to some extent the antithesis of the intent behind open-source licenses, including this one. I doubt the authors of the license ever intended for it to transfer copyright ownership, not would they agree that it does. Pete
From: John Leonard on 19 Sep 2009 14:36
On Sep 19, 2:16 pm, markspace <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > John Leonard wrote: > >> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the > >> copyright notice, you've violated the law. > > > I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. > > I think it does. Your modifications become a "derivative work" and the > rights to a derivative work stay with the original rights holder. That > would be Sun, as clearly stated at the very top of the comments block. > > You still have the right to USE it under the license Sun granted you > (GPL/CDDL), but Sun OWNS it. That is preposterous. |