Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:53:53PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Where did you pick that one up? Can you show me the wording ANYWHERE that supports that statement?I'll explain. The GPL expressly forbids you to create any derived work that is not GPL itself.
[some nitpicking follows]
The work cannot "be" GPL; it must be licensed under the terms of the GPL, but this license doesn't have to be exclusive.
If the GPL allows you to create a derivative work which includes a GPL-protected product or parts of it, *you* own the copyright for the derivative work *as a whole*,
Technically true, but apparently not in the way you interpret it.
even though the constituent parts taken from other works retain their respective copyrights.No, they are also copyright holders on the entire new work. In other words, the entire derived work is new work, for which you hold copyright. Even if entire sections were taken verbatim from my work, you hold copyright for them. That much is true.
However, I do not seize to hold copyright for those very same sections as well. It therefor follows that you cannot distribute it unless you get my consent, which is not given for non-GPL redistribution. It therefor follows that the rest of your explanation is untrue.
If you wrote a piece of code, and licensed it under the GPL, and I create derived work, the GPL is the only license with which I can distribute my derived work. Anything else will be violating your copyright.
See above for my reading of the GPL on this issue.
It's your reading of copyright law that I contest, not of the GPL.
It partly derives from an illuminating mailing list discussion with RMS about this many years ago which clarified some things for me that weren't clear before (I'm having trouble locating it just now, still trying).I will be glad to see it if you find it. Please note, however, that while RMS certainly spent more time on these issues than me and you combined, he too is not a lawyer. I have seen places where the FAQ on the FSF web site don't agree with the copyright law as I see it (after discussing these matters with lawyers who know their way around copyright). This means that according to the FSF the GPL is enforceable in some places where a court may see it as non-enforceable.
Please note - this does not mean that the GPL is not enforceable. Just that it does not always apply.
I'm glad we agree on the issue of not having to distribute at all; that second nit of mine did conflict with your "The GPL expressly forbids you to create any derived work that is not GPL itself", but I didn't mean to contradict you, merely to clarify this small, but important, point.Or, as you said, nitpick :-) In any case, if my original mail could be read to say that the above was not allowed, it was a mistake on my part.
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
