Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > They do not. They post contributions to GPL-licensed > programs, and the GPL is the only documentation of > their intent. If the GPL intended to create a joint > work it would say so, and since it does not, no joint
Uh retard Hyman. A joint work can be created without any license at all. The GPL doesn't have to say anything about joint works (just like in the case of no license at all) for a joint work created that is available to non-coauthors under the GPL. Coauthors don't need any non-exclusive license -- they have exclusive ownership!!! regards, alexander. P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation" Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
