On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: > > It's not you, the AFL copyright holder, who can choose not to > > care. It's Jimmy Q. Gplauthor, whose copyright is infringed > > by having a derivative work (the GPL+AFL code) distributed > > under more restrictive terms than the GPL. > > Huh? Is Jimmy == Person A, Person B or Person C? Keep your parties > straight. I challenge you to find any copyright infringement in > anything I suggested!!!!
Jimmy is none of the above, he's the author of X. Sorry, I didn't want to dig through the archives to find the previous example. Here it is: >> Person A writes W and licenses it to everyone under the AFL. Person B >> comes along and, in the true spirit of free software, creates and >> distributes collective work W+X and derivative work W' under the GPL. >> No surprises for B. He's read the AFL and the GPL and he understands >> that he's doing what's allowed. I'm not sure exactly what W+X is, whether it's mere aggregation of W and X, or whether it's work derivative of both. Let's use WX to be a derivative work of both W and X, whether it be by linking, copying parts of code, or whatnot. WX is not distributable by anyone, as it cannot meet both the GPL and the AFL. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
