On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller writes: > > > Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is > > > governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does > > > copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? > > > > I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed > > by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who > > do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the > > right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements. > > Copyright law does not reserve the right to determine a license for > derivative works; it just reserves the right to authorize their > creation. Copyleft works by conditioning that authorization on the > derivative work(s) being licensed under certain terms. Similarly, the > GFDL works by conditioning the authorization to copy a work on not > using technical measures to restrict the reading or further copying of > the copies.
Sure, but nothing in copyleft requires that someone creating a derivative work place any specific license on that derivative work. Granted, no copy rights are granted if an appropriate license is not used. But that's not a requirement -- that's entirely up to the person creating the derivative work. > > Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a > > copyrighted work are being generated. > > > > Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated > > and where no copy rights are being asserted. > > Obviously not, but someone makes a copy when I download a file from a > Debian archive mirror to my hard drive, and in the scenario I > described (I somehow have a copy; I make another copy; I chmod the > second copy) I would generate a copy. It's true that you would generate a copy, but the chmod in no way controls the generation of that copy, nor does it control your generation of further copies. I suppose I could see you trying to argue that the person who operates the machine you downloaded the copy from was involved, but your use of chmod in no way controls that person's ability to make further copies. I suppose I could see you arguing that random user Joe is being denied access to make further copies, but random user Joe has not been a part of the specific example you're discussing. However, if this is what you were alluding to: you have to grant Joe some right to read or make copies before you can institute any controls on Joe's right to read or make further copies. You can't control something that doesn't exist. -- Raul
