Ownership is control to me. Courts would agree. If you waive your ownership, you waive your control...vice versa. Copyright is control whether you like it or not. Second, I cannot understand how you can connect the derivative works clause in the GPL to permissions and rights expected by copyright enforcement courts in this country.
Lets say I write a code that disables the function of an F1 key. Even though its an error, I distribute my code under the strict terms that say you cannot fix this problem. I GPL the code. The GPL says that owners can make the modification. Copyright or not, explain to me how I could possibly forbid anyone from making the change? kb -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@;reutershealth.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:16 PM To: Ken Brown Cc: John Cowan; Sujita Purushothaman; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Copyright Ken Brown scripsit: > Lets deal with this one at a time. My first question is this-who does the > code belong to once it is GPL'ed? What entity, person, group, troll, > whoever owns the code? The question is not well formed. Code, or any other textual work, is not "owned" in the same unitary way that one can own land or own a toothbrush. Instead, there are two people who are relevant: the "copyright owner" and the "owner of a lawful copy". The copyright owner is the creator, or the creator's employer in specified circumstances, or anyone that the creator transfers copyright ownership to. Initially, the copyright owner has five rights: To control making copies of the work To control distribution of the work To control the public performance of the work To control the public display of the work To control the making of derivative works based on the work The owner of a lawful copy (that is, one whose copy was made with the permission of the copyright owner) has all the other rights. He may use the work on one or more computers. He may write a review of the work, using brief quotations from it as a matter of fair use. He may destroy his copy. He may do all the other things that owners may do. Any or all of this can be changed by a valid contract executed between the copyright owner and the owner of a lawful copy. In the case of proprietary software such as Microsoft Word, the owner of a lawful copy is tightly restricted by the EULA, a contract to which he has (presumably) assented. He can only use the software on one computer, gains no ownership rights over the copy at all, and is generally bound and shackled. The GPL is a declaration by the copyright owner that everyone, including the owners of lawful copies, is allowed to copy and/or distribute the work. In addition, everyone is allowed to make derivative works under certain restrictions. Making a derivative work is construed as assent to those restrictions; if you do not obey them, you are usurping the copyright owner's rights. It is essential to the GPL that there be a copyright owner to assert those rights (in court if necessary) so that misuse can be prevented or punished. So the nearest answer to your question is "The copyright owner is whoever it was before; anyone can become an owner of a lawful copy." (AFAICT, the GPL is called "general" because it applies to many different works, and "public" because it is applicable to any member of the public.) IANAL, TINLA. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet." --Brian K. Reid -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
