Subject: Re: GNU and classified software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 18:09:00 -0400 (EDT)

"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <> writes:
> You are correct that a contractor is not an employee, and that the
> modification is therefore not a work for hire. My recollection, however, is
> that in a contracting arrangement the ownership of the result vests in the
> party hiring the contractor unless other provisions are made.

I don't think so in general; that's what the (b) section of the piece
of the US law I quoted was about.  The work-for-hire exception is,
IIRC, the only case in which the copyright originally belongs to
someone other than the author.

It's possible to assign copyright, but that has to be done explicitly
and in writing.