Re: Switching to Linux and C

From: <>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

I look forward to that. If he owns the copyrights vs licensing as there shouldn't be any form of licensing if it has been fully purchased. 

After that, I suggest setting up some kind of non-profit holding company to assign the assets to. Then the assets can be licensed using anything from like a MIT license so both commercial and non-commercial use of the rights can be employed for the copyrighted stuff. As for patents and trademarks, that can be somewhat a different issue. 

Inexpensive NCLs for non-commercial use where as commercial use may require something that will help finance the holding company operations which can be held by a collective of members/shareholders or whatever. I'll be in favor of such a membership as well. 

Agreements like, we members with licenses don't go after others because they happen to use the trademark or ROMs or whatever. We just strive to co-exist. I am not 100% sure the status of trademark matters. This way, we all can find some way of moving forward. It's just an idea but I am certainly an interested party about the matters.

Thanks for the info. 

>     On August 26, 2017 at 2:07 PM David Holz <> wrote:
>     On 08/26/2017 09:17 AM, Jim Brain wrote:
>         > > 
> >         On 8/26/2017 10:47 AM, wrote:
> > 
> >             > > > 
> > >             that sounds fishy by itself - either copyright is transferred to you,
> > >             or you
> > >             licensed the IP in question and pay royalties for it. AFAIK there is
> > >             no legal
> > >             scenario in which you both register the IP on yourself AND pay
> > >             royalties for
> > >             it to a third party. it doesnt make a lot of sense either (only the
> > >             owner of
> > >             the IP can register it, and the owner does not pay royalties to
> > >             himself).
> > > 
> > >             Maybe it's just a lack of understanding of copyrights. Not everyone
> > >             understand the intricacies. Maybe it is safer to say he purchased
> > >             rights to those copyrights, and he needs to pay a royalty on any
> > >             sales, as part of the rights purchase contract. But, like you, I know
> > >             of no scenarios where one can purchase a copyright and then still have
> > >             to pay a royalty. But, like on JiffyDOS, I licensed the IP, and my
> > >             contract asks for a royalty payment.
> > > 
> > >         > > 
> >         Jim
> > 
> >     > 
>     Yeah, all I'm doing is relaying what he was saying. He's certainly
>     trying to figure out all the legalities as things progress. His endgame
>     is to find or establish a foundation which would own the C=/Amiga
>     copyrights and steward the IP, instead of being held by a for-profit
>     company. He is trying to get all the legalities cleaned up first, and
>     figuring out how such a foundation would be funded and have lots of
>     members or whatever. He's being open about all of this, and wants
>     people to know that it's 3rd parties pushing him to pursue some of these
>     cases because of their claimed stake, but he hasn't written all this up
>     online yet.
>     I personally think that it can be made a lot simpler, and involve
>     letters going out saying that the new owners of the IP are not honoring
>     contracts established with the prior owners, as many companies have done
>     in the past. Because really, from a sensible and ethical viewpoint
>     these products are a dead market business-wise anyways, and if you have
>     enough to claim to own it, you can do what you want with it and let the
>     community openly modify & thrive with it. But this is his project, and
>     he's doing what he thinks is the proper way forward.
>     Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2017-08-26 23:00:02

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.