John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > * 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.
> On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says > "OpenVision *retains* copyright" strongly implies that it is simply > talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any > copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be > assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be > needed. It's the "derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" that muddies the water. This could be rationally interpreted as a claim to "retain" copyright in *all* derived works of the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created "by a third party". That interpretation would fairly easily lead to the conclusion that the creator of the derivative work *doesn't* have copyright in the work, since OpenVision's terms explicitly take it away. > It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the > licence, but it's not non-free. I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain copyright" is not all-inclusive. -- \ "Courteous and efficient self-service." —Café sign, southern | `\ France | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]