In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the GPL only covers distribution. > >And copyright law covers derivatives. So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a licence. If I create a modified version of Emacs and don't distribute it, what allows me to? >> To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two >> things: > >The whole hinges on the question whether he has done two things or >one. Namely whether they can be legally considered completely >independent. > >> distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and >> contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline. Which of >> these requires a licence? > >Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent. So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution of a derivative work of MacOS X? -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
