Ken Brown scripsit: > Ownership is control to me. Courts would agree. If you waive your > ownership, you waive your control...vice versa.
No, you don't. Ownership is the right to exercise control, not the duty to do so. If you waive control, you waive it. > 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. Copyright ownership means you have the right to allow or disallow certain things. The GPL allows certain things and disallows others. > 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? You can't. Either you distribute under the GPL or you don't (or you distribute some copies under the GPL and others not). -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclic http://www.reutershealth.com graphs; you have a right to be here. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
