Hyman Rosen wrote: >On 2/10/2010 3:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > >> The idea is that by doing a few modifying and copyrightable changes into >> a "single program" in response to the GPL offer one becomes a joint >> copyright owner of the entire work "as a whole" and can rightfully >> license that entire work (with 'as a whole' as 'defined' and intended by >> the GPL) in disrespect of the GPL.
Good gravy, what a ludicrous claim. You are a fscking idiot. >No, that's completely wrong: <http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/ownership.html> > A joint work is defined by the Copyright Act as: > a work prepared by two or more authors with the > intention that their contributions be merged into > inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. > >A second author cannot hijack someone else's work to become a >joint author - joint authorship has to be consented to by every >author of the work, including the first. Rather, the first >author has authorized the preparation of derivative works only >under the GPL, and any secondary author who makes changes and >copies and distributes the resulting work other than under the >GPL is simply infringing copyright. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
