Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a > > > third party." I think this could threat this software freedom. > > > > Yes. This adds a requirement that doesn't exist under copyright > > law: "you, the creator of a derivative work, will surrender > > copyright in that work to OpenVision". That's a significant cost > > to pay, and it's written in the license as a term of deriving the > > work at all. > > AIUI this says that openvision has copyright to derivative works, > which is a fact anyway. There can be multiple copyright holders, and > in the case of a derivative work created by a third party, there > will be. I don't see what's non-free about that?
The "may be non-free" aspect was the requirement of requiring the creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms, I would regard it as non-free. I hadn't thought of the interpretation that this clause is merely asserting that OpenVision retains copyright *in the parts of the work to which they already had copyright*. It's not clear whether this is intended to apply *also* to the creative work introduced in the derivative work. -- \ "[The RIAA] have the patience to keep stomping. They're playing | `\ whack-a-mole with an infinite supply of tokens." -- kennon, | _o__) http://kuro5hin.org/ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
