r1704 - alfs/trunk/docs/SRS/prologue

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Feb 5 12:29:48 PST 2005


Jamie Bennett wrote:
> I see the licence is creative commons which is nice but as for copyright
> owner couldn't we use 'the ALFS community' or is that legally not
> binding?

I don't think it's binding at all.  I've been led to believe that a 
copyright holder must be a legally recognisable entity - that is either 
a company, a non-profit organisation or an individual.  However:

"The starting point in all U.S. copyright ownership issues is the 
general rule that the individual who creates a work is the initial owner 
not only of the work, but of its copyright. The copyright protection 
applies the moment the artist or author creates the work -- even before 
the work is finalized. Additionally, the copyright protection applies 
whether nor not the artist/author affixes the © symbol or the words 
Copyright [date] to the work, or chooses to register the work with the 
Register of Copyrights in Washington, D.C. or with any of the state 
equivalents." [http://www.nonprofits.org/npofaq/16/40.html]

So we could just remove the copyright text in its entirety, as the 
copyright of various portions of the SRS are already owned by its 
respective author.  The advantage of assigning each of our copyrights to 
a single person though is that if a change of license is required, as 
the copyright holder, that individual is able to change the license 
without having to obtain agreement by all the individual contributors.

So, in short, all of you can be confident that you still own the 
copyright to your contributions despite that copyright statement I added 
last night.  Maybe a list of contributors is going to be more beneficial 
(and less contentious/confusing) to us than that copyright statement?

Regards,

Matt.



More information about the alfs-log mailing list