John Souvestre wrote:
> Hi Jeremy.
>
> > Your rights and control end at your original code. Modifications and
> > patches are the product of someone else's labor and effort, ergo you
> > have no right to dictate any rights, requirements or responsibility on
> > code that is not yours, ever.
>
> Sorry, but no. Copyrights cover modified versions of works, also. You can't
> change one note in a song and claim that you control the new version.
That is an extreme version, and I think that we would all agree to your
point on that specific case. However, in the cases of substantial
changes, this creates a problem. What incentive is there, then, to
make improvements to existing works? If someone makes a major
improvement to something, but loses control because it is a derivative
work, it makes no sense to make that improvement. They loose the
rights and rewards that go along with that work.
> Your modifications and patches do not stand alone. They only exist as
> extensions to the original work. Thus the original author's copyright controls
> the result of any changes you make. Indeed, his copyright allows him to forbid
> you to make any changes if he should so choose.
If that is the case, then that alone is sound reason NOT to submit
modifications and patches. Sorry, if I don't maintain the rights to my
work, that is a major issue. In fact, it seemingly runs counter to the
concept of "property rights" that so many people seem to cling to.
And clearly this points to obvious issue with copyrights that needs to
be addressed - the original copyright holder should have no rights to
the modification by themselves. In other words, my patch files and
source, while complimentary to the work, should be treated as completely
separate works in terms of ownership and control. The original author
should not be able to maintain control over another person's work.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/13/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST