response 33 of 43:

Nov 6 16:29 UTC 2001

Re #27:  Sounds intriguing.  Can you expand on it?

response 35 of 43:

Nov 6 16:31 UTC 2001

Probably a coop discussion would make sense, whether or not the board
discusses it.

response 37 of 43:

Nov 6 18:10 UTC 2001

re #33:  If I find time tonight, I will.  Otherwise, someone else
should at least consider the angle.

response 39 of 43:

Nov 7 08:18 UTC 2001

Let us see if I have the patience to do this.

To begin, the "joint works" provisions of copyright law were not as 
promising as I had hoped.  While a case may be made that items such as 
the Meandering Maundering items in Oathbound or the Questions and 
Answers items in InBetween could fall under the category, most would 
not.  The hang-up is that for a work to be considered a "joint work", 
each author has to intend to be considered a joint author, and each 
author has to consider all other authors to also be joint authors.  I 
apologise for not presently having the mental faculties necessary to 
present a clear example of where most items on Grex would fail this 
test, but I suspect most could construct such an example on their own.

However, the concepts of implied nonexclusive license, copyright 
abandonment and copyright forfeiture do look promising in their 
relevance and application to present and future dilemmas concerning 
copyright.  The catch is that I have only read citations at this point, 
not the actual case law, and I do not expect to have the opportunity to 
complete said research anytime soon, certainly not before the meeting 
set for this evening.  I also suspect such research may create more 
questions than answers, although I intend to complete it as my time 
permits.

response 41 of 43:

Nov 7 17:35 UTC 2001

Yes, he could, but your example is irrelevant to the case law I plan to
examine, as I will look at overt acts, not merely passive conduct.

Here is a short list of the cases I plan to examine at an undetermined
future date:

HERBERT V. US, 36 FED.CL. 299
 - Copyright license is agreement not to sue licensee for infringement
 - Implied license can be derived from conduct of parties
 - Scope & extent of permissible use under implied license determined by
   conduct of parties

TRANSGO, INC. V. AJAC TRANSMISSION PARTS CORP., 768 F.2D. 1001, 82 ALR FED 97
 - Copyright can be forfeited through overt act indicating desire to 
   surrender rights
 - Agreeing with full knowledge to publication of vast number of copies
   without copyright notice may result in forfeiture

HADADY CORP. V. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC., 739 F.SUPP. 1392
 - "Abandonment" occurs with intent to surrender
 - Forfeiture may occur regardless of intent to preserve

I.A.E., INC. V. SHAVER, 74 F.3D 768
 - Under "implied nonexclusive license," permits use in particular manner,
   may be implied by conduct
 - Lack of objection sufficient, license need not be in writing


Much to the relief of many a person, I am not a lawyer, and do not wish
to have present or future comments on this matter to be construed as legal
advice.  I strongly urge others to examine the relevant case law.

response 43 of 43:

Nov 7 18:52 UTC 2001

While I admit to having not yet read that particular case, I suspect
you miss the basis of the ruling.  My understanding of the citation
is that the case only addresses a contemporaneous lack of objection, as
opposed to future attempts to revoke a license.