Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony wrote:
>On 7/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey(a)wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>" ...Wikimedia doesn't transfer the ownership of anything, and there is
no
>>rental, lease, or lending. But then again, by that definition
>>*nothing* distributed over the Internet is published, and I doubt a
>>court would agree with that...."
>>
>>Because of the way the GFDL works, ownership is transferred to every person
>>that receives it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Ownership of what? The ownership of copyright doesn't get
>transferred. Copies of the work don't get transferred. What gets
>transferred? Bits?
>
>
>
>
I agree with you on this. GFDL is a licence, not a transfer of ownership.
It transfers rights tantamount to ownership (all of this GNU crap does).
And may qualify
as a transfer of copyight since it conveys "RIGHT TO COPY" == COPYRIGHT.
People just for some reason are not able to get this. Go read the licence. If
you grant someone unlimited
RIGHT TO COPY under the Doctrine of Esstoppel, after they do it for some
period of time, it may qualify as a transfer of copyright.
There is case law that backs up this view -- Copyrights can be
transferred on the back of a bubble gum
wrapper according to one ruling by the Circuit courts when you give
someone UNLIMITED RIGHT TO COPY something.
What makes this position possibly valid is the fact people state the
content under such licenses is "FREE". When you say
something is FREE it implies a transaction or transfer occurred. "I did
not pay for this new hat, it was free and part of
a promotion, but it was given to me for FREE, and now it's MY PROPERTY".
I think you can see the logic. If folks
want to make claims they hold copyrights on materials under any of these
GNU licenses, the words "FREE" should not
be used and replaced with "LICENSED AT NO CHARGE FOR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES" and the words
"RIGHT TO COPY" replaced with "LICENSED UNDER THE TERMS."