--- Daniel Carrera wrote: > Can we stop these posts already?
With all due respect, this mailing list is called: "license-discuss". 1. GPL is a license. 2. It is being discussed. I do not see what the problem here is. Also, note that implications of that discussion might affect other licenses, namely Open Software License 2.0. See 1(c) of the OSL v. 2.0: --------------------------------- c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software License; --------------------------------- Just as "viral" as the GPL. I would further claim that every single license that requires conditions to be repeated "ad infinitum" (i.e. self perpetuating conditions) is in fact viral, at least partially. This would then mean, in terms of contract law, "universal privity", which is a problem in itself. So, the intention of the discussion is to determine this: 1. Does Copyright Act give explicit rights to license without requiring additional legal machinery? 2. Does Copyright Act give explicit rights to put conditions on the above licensing? 3. Does Copyright Act require, demand or imply a contract between owners of copyright for a copyrighted work to be used in a manner defined in section 106? Or does it recongnize the multiple unilateral permission as sufficient to do so? 4. Can Copyright Act provide standalone protection for copyrighted works or does it require other legal machinery to do so? By answering the above questions we'll be closer to determining if there is such a thing as "bare license" or "copyright license" and if GPL, OSL etc. are in fact examples of such licenses. I see this as very important, given the amount of code that's released daily. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
