On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:23:34 +0100, olaf.kluge@... wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:32:39 +0100, olaf.kluge@... wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> one of our customer has no confidence in the Copyright Law of the
>> firebird-database. Is there a certificate for confirmation? We need to
>> confirm all copyright claims to take over!
>>
>> Thank your for your help!
>
> What exactly does your customer question? The law (which has nothing to

do

> with Firebird, but with your country), the license or copyright of
> Firebird, or the license or copyright of the database?
>
> You don't register for copyright, copyright is something that is linked
> with the creation of a work itself, so there is no 'certificate of
> confirmation' (whatever that is, and whatever legal value such a

document

> would have). The open-source license of Firebird is available for
> inspection and review, as is the original open-source licnese for the
> release of Interbase. The history of source changes and their committers
> can be viewed on sourceforge (through CVS and Subversion). If you really
> need advise on copyright, I'd advise you took talk to a IP lawyer with
> experience with open source..
>
> Also I don't understand what you mean with 'We need to confirm all
> copyright claims to take over!'.
>
> Mark
>
> Hello Mark and Thomas,
>
> our customer thinks, that he must pay for firebird in future, even
> retroactively.

As I said: this is 'guaranteed' by the original Interbase Public License
that was used for the open source release of Interbase 6 beta and the
Initial Developer Public License which was used for subsequent. All the
sources, changes to sources, licenses applied to sources etc are available
in CVS (past) and Subversion (present).

Other than that no one, not even the Firebird Foundation (as they don't
own Firebird) or the current owner of Interbase, can make any claims or
retroactively revoke this license. On the other hand, no one can indemnify
your customer against any claims arising from third parties.

> In German:
>
> Sie sind ja bestimmt auch über das deutsche Urheberrechtsgesetz in
> Kenntnis.

If I read this correctly it ask if you also own the German copyright. That
is meaningless: IANAL, but AFAIK under the Berne convention copyright is
global and assigned immediately upon creation: you don't register for
copyright (although some lawyers and notaries will claim otherwise because
they make money by 'registering' copyright).

Also, you don't own the copyright: the copyright of any code in Firebird
is owned either by the current owner of Interbase (IPL) or by the
programmer making the changes (IDPL), you (and your customer) get a
royalty-free, non-exclusive license to do whatever you want with the
sourcecode (there are some limits laid out in the license).

> Ein Internet Ausdruck hat rechtlich absolut keinen Wert, wenn es dem
> Eigentürmer einfällt Geld zu verdienen so kann er das jederzeit tun.

Auch

> rückwirkend.

This loosely translates as 'A printout from the internet has absolutely no
value in law, when the owner wants to earn money of it, he can at any time,
even retroactively'. That is simply not true, neither the first nor the
last part. The act of releasing, including the license in the release is
sufficient to give the user the rights asserted in the license.
Indeed an owner can decide to also sell his changes under a closed source
license (which is what was done with Interbase), but he can never revoke
the licenses he already gave out (and because of the sublicensing clause:
anyone can continue to release that piece of code under that license).
I strongly advise that both you and your client consult an IP lawyer who
understand open source licenses if you are to go ahead.

But if this really means that much to your client: the license of Firebird
gives *you* the right to sublicense the work (under the same license), so
if it makes your client happy you can make an official looking certificate
for that customer. It would not be lying, but it wouldn't add any real
value.

I also specifically want to point out article 31a of the German copyright
law, which (through Google translate) states:
"§ 31a agreements on unknown types of use
(1) A contract by which the author grants rights for unknown types of use
or is committed, requires the written form. *The written form is not
required if the author gives a simple free right of use for everyone.* The
author may revoke such grant of rights or the obligation to do so. The
right expires after three months after the notification, the other about
the proposed inclusion of the new type of plant use to the author sent him
to the last known address.
(2) The right to cancel does not apply if the parties reach an agreement
after learning of the new usage of an allowance under § 32c para 1. The
right of withdrawal does also not apply if the parties have agreed to pay
compensation to a common rule. It goes with the author's death.
(3) *If several works or contributions combined to form a whole which will
process in the new type of use in an appropriate manner can only be using
all works or contributions, the author may not exercise the right of
cancellation in breach of good faith.*
(4) The rights referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3 can not be waived in
advance. "

Specifically I think that the (1) second sentence and (3) apply to
Firebird.

BTW: 'plant' should read 'work' (as in copyrighted work).

> Nur durch eine Form der Urkunde werden Rechte überlassen.

'Only in the form of a certificate are rights released' (roughly): Also
not true, see article 31a (1), second sentence.

But once again: IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

PS Check the way your mailclient quotes e-mail messages, it is weird to
have my own message on the same level as yours.