Dan's Guardian

[Bradley Hook]

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc

In the United States, *exclusive* copyright can only be transferred by 
an explicit written and signed agreement. Non-exclusive rights can be 
transferred by whatever form of contract you wish (aural, written, 
implied, etc.). This means that if you send code to a project with a 
published statement like this, they can redistribute your code under the 
terms of their statement. But, they can not prohibit you from doing what 
you wish with your code, because you still own the copyright.

Unfortunately, retracting the rights you granted through your implied 
agreement is difficult, if not impossible.

One other thing I wanted to point out is that Dan is not releasing 
different sections of the program under different licenses. Blacklists 
are data files, not program code. The entire program is licensed under 
GPL, but Dan has tried to create a situation where you can only obtain 
the program for free if you are using it for non-commercial purposes. 
What he is doing is legitimate, just very messy.

~Bradley

Jon Pruente wrote:
> Under GLP V2 Sec.2, he can release the program with GPL sections and
> non-GPL sections.  I'm not familiar with DG but if there are clearly
> separate non-GLP sections (ie, the blacklist, etc) then he has a full
> right to ask for limitations of copying those.  If contributions are
> sent to him without GPL notices, then he might have the right to
> include them in non-GLP sections of DG, but under what terms, I'm not
> sure.  If he makes it clear that submissions are to be treated in such
> a manner and someone sends it to him anyway, then he might have legal
> grounds.  If someone knowingly sends non-GLP modifications to him
> after he has clearly posted his intentions on how to handle them, I
> don't see a conflict with the GPL.  If they send GLP modifications to
> him and he ignores the GPL requirements, then he's got issues.  How
> many people really take the time to put the GPL notice on a quick hack
> or mod?  If you don't, and it's not a mod to GPL portions of the code,
> you are at likely the mercy of whatever rights the receiver wants to
> claim (if they are claimed in advance, I'm sure).
> 
> Jon.
> 
> 
> On 12/13/06, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 17:23, Dale Beams wrote:
>>> It's not the GPL that is muddy.  It is statements such as (c) and the
>>> following;
>>>
>>> Quote "All contributions from other authors are vetted and incorporated by
>>> me (Daniel Barron). All contributors automatically hand over all copyright
>>> to me. What contributors get in return is fame, the feature they want, the
>>> bug they fixed incorporated, and a warm fuzzy feeling that they are also
>>> helping others who get the software for free."
>> There are a number of proprietary company websites which claim at least an
>> unrestricted license on idea submissions. Not to say that makes it right or
>> legal, but it's at least common-place.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Kclug mailing list
>> Kclug at kclug.org
>> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
> 
>