3 ms·

I was asking who owns the copy, not who owns the copyright. And yes, it's relevant: if I own the copy (even though you own the copyright), then you are afford

I was asking who owns the copy, not who owns the copyright. And yes, it's relevant: if I own the copy (even though you own the copyright), then you are afforded the rights as the copyright holder -- which don't include telling me how I consume it, or revoking my right to my copy at a later date because I have become your competitor.

hiro_protag 8y ago
Estoppel would probably prevent a company from revoking your license to software "because you have become a competitor." Bryan, are you worried about the cloud providers restricting or limiting the access of competitors to computing resources? It seems like that is a much more real threat than a startup company doing something negative around a community project. And frankly the smug tone about "open source will survive" is not warranted. Open source was the original software business model in the beginning. It didn't survive the 1980s.
IAmEveryone 8y ago
What does “afford the rights as the copyright owner” mean? It cannot mean “have the same rights”, because I believe we’d all agree that forking on github does not, as but one example, confer the right to re-license the code.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > What does “afford the rights as the copyright owner” mean? I would assume they mean they have a legal cough limited cough monopoly on the distribution of said software through force of law.
- wtallis 8y ago
  If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library). If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software. (And, in cases like Confluence, they have to assert ownership of all copies that their users are authorized to make and redistribute.)
  - webmaven 8y ago
    > If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library). That's an interesting analogy... Is creating KSQL-as-a-service the equivalent of renting copies of the software? What would the "library exception" look like (which AIUI includes both private and public libraries)? > If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software. Attempts to do that contradict the "first-sale" doctrine, but that doesn't stop folks from trying.

hiro_protag 8y ago

Estoppel would probably prevent a company from revoking your license to software "because you have become a competitor." Bryan, are you worried about the cloud providers restricting or limiting the access of competitors to computing resources? It seems like that is a much more real threat than a startup company doing something negative around a community project. And frankly the smug tone about "open source will survive" is not warranted. Open source was the original software business model in the beginning. It didn't survive the 1980s.

IAmEveryone 8y ago

What does “afford the rights as the copyright owner” mean? It cannot mean “have the same rights”, because I believe we’d all agree that forking on github does not, as but one example, confer the right to re-license the code.

UncleEntity 8y ago
> What does “afford the rights as the copyright owner” mean? I would assume they mean they have a legal cough limited cough monopoly on the distribution of said software through force of law.
wtallis 8y ago
If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library). If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software. (And, in cases like Confluence, they have to assert ownership of all copies that their users are authorized to make and redistribute.)
- webmaven 8y ago
  > If your customers/users own their copies of your software, then your rights to control what they do with that are enumerated in 17USC§106, and limited by eg. 17USC§117 or §109. Section 109 for example says that your customers can sell off their copy, but can't rent it out (unless they're a library). That's an interesting analogy... Is creating KSQL-as-a-service the equivalent of renting copies of the software? What would the "library exception" look like (which AIUI includes both private and public libraries)? > If you want to prevent your users from re-selling their copy when they're done with it, you have to assert that you have retained ownership of their copy of the software. Attempts to do that contradict the "first-sale" doctrine, but that doesn't stop folks from trying.