daniel wallace scripsit: > When you impose a "condition" on another person's exclusive legal > rights you are asking that person to wave a legal right. After all, > the right is "exclusive" and no one may impose a condition without > that person's concious agreement to waive that right.
Very good. But the maker of the derivative work is in no position to attack the GPL, for absent the GPL he has no license to the original work at all. At best, as I said, he could claim that the original owner is estopped from changing from the GPL to a more restrictive license or withdrawing it altogether, at least as regards his rights. Which is a Good Thing. > In order > to secure the modifying author's permission to distribute his work in the > derivative copyright work, a "binding legal form" must be implimented. You said that before, but as far as I can see there is no warrant for it. The right to distribute (as opposed to the right to create) derivative works is not one of the enumerated exclusive rights; it belongs fully to the (licensed) creator of the derivative work. -- Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan "Never in the field of human computing [EMAIL PROTECTED] has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to so few!" (pace Winston Churchill) http://www.reutershealth.com -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
