Re: Another job for the Gnome Foundation ?

[Brian Behlendorf <brian collab net>]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us wrote:
> It is NEVER the case that joint owners of the copyright in a work
> (whether or not their individual contributions can be identified) must
> agree on copyright issues, with a single exception discussed below.
> The law quite clearly holds that each joint owner has full dominion
> over the work and may exercise that dominion (including granting
> licenses for its use) without regard to the wishes of the other joint
> author(s), and is liable to other owners only for a share of profits
> realized from such activities.  There is case law on this point; I
> read a case some years ago regarding a pair of university professors
> who coauthored an article.  One of them decided that the article
> should not be published.  The other disagreed and sought to publish
> it.  The first sued to prevent the second from publishing, and lost.

Sounds like I was fouled on a technicality.  =)  "Joint" still means that
there has to be communication between the parties, even if it's just about
how much each party made in licensing fees and render impossible the
concept of exclusivity.  My point remains: I see no value to having a
"joint" ownership when having the gnome foundation be granted a
"non-exclusive, unlimited, right to reuse/redistribute/modify/relicense"
from the original developers would suffice, and be much simpler.

	Brian