cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative

From: Zak Greant <zak AT mysql.com>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Cc: Jim Willis <sjwillis AT sec.state.ri.us>
Subject: Re: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:17:04 -0700

On Mar 23, 2004, at 09:59, Rob Myers wrote:

On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:26PM, Zak Greant <zak AT mysql.com> wrote:

In fact, the members in the GOCC project only have to assert, via a
contract, that they have the right to publish software contributed to
the repository under the license that they choose to contribute it under
or that is already attached to that software.

Hi.

Thanks for fighting the FUD. :-)

One question that's relevent to the discussion on this list is why project members have to make this assertion? Surely by contributing they are implicitly claiming that the software is theirs to contribute? What legal efect does making the assertion part of the contract have?

Please note that I am not a member of the project, merely a friend helping out a very busy friend. :)

In their place, I would do such a thing to ensure that there is a paper trail to show that the work was willfully put under a certain license by the copyright holder. I don't think that anyone wants a(nother) situation where a large organization asserts that a work was unlawfully put under an FLOSS-type license.

Cheers!
--zak

Re: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative, Rob Myers, 03/23/2004
- Re: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative, Zak Greant, 03/23/2004