Any code developer who releases FOSS code under an unsigned,
nonexclusive license retains the original copyright
ownership rights. If the code developer subsequently legally
transfers his copyrights to a new owner, the code released
under the license is no longer protected from infringement
claims
Eben Moglen's theory of:
"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to
remain within the bounds of the license not because she
voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right
to act at all except as the license permits."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
i
The FSF analogy of "public license" and the GPL is really what I was
referring to. The analogy of
the GPL as a General "Public License" is extremely confusing to a large
number of people.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
"The essence of copyright law, like other systems of prope
The following link is the best work on license
law that I have ever found:
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5943.html
Disaster lurks for those who do not comprehend
the difference between a *malefaction* and a
*benefaction* in copyright license law.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/c
In the case of the GPL an original "preexisting" author A
prepares (authorizes) modification of his "preexisting"
work and grants permission to distribute his "preexisting"
work. Author B accepts these permissions granted by the
GPL and modifies the "preexisting" work. This is now a
"derivative wor
Here are some thoughts on the meaning of "unilateral permissions"
as used in present copyright license formulation.
Some definitions so that things are consistent:
--- Unilateral --- One-sided, ex parte: having relation of only
one of two or more persons or things.
***Black's Law Dictionary (5th E
Perhaps these comments from the annointed version of
the Copright Act will clarify things:
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476
Section 103 complements section 102: A c
1) There is an exclusive right of an original author to
prepare (authorize) a derivative work. This is granted
under section 106(2) of the Copyright Act.
2) Two distinct exclusive copyrights exist in an
authorized derivative work. The "preexisting" author's
copyright in the material which will form
It does not. The GPL imposes a condition on anyone who wishes to
make a derivative work, viz. that the derivative work, if distributed
at all, be distributed under the conditions of the GPL and no
others.
When you impose a "condition" on another person's exclusive legal
rights you are asking th
Section 103 (b) of the Copyright Act says:
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work
extends only to the material contributed by the author
of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material.
If the GPL is a "bare" license,then what binds the two
mutually disjoint permissions in a distributed
derivative work. How is distribution authorized?
There are two copyright authors in a derivative work,
the "preexisting" authorizing author and "modifying" author.
In a "bare" license or unilateral
Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
(1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
(2) the promisor knew that the promisee had relied on
the promise which the promisor should reasonably expect
to induce action or forbe
Here is a New Public License (pun intended) that contains no contract
terms, deters commercial sale or lease and the Federal Government will
be happy to enforce it's conditions for you.
**
NEW PUBLIC LICENSE
Copyright Dan
I wish to thank you for responding to my musings. I am a retired
physicist with little to do but ponder things in my spare time.
I observed that in the SCO v. IBM travesty that IBM legal in
their counterclaims against SCO described the GPL as:
"The Linux developers' public agreement to apply GPL te
If any of the "rules and formalities" of contracts you mention
are required to be enforced under state law, that involves an "element"
of state action. The GPL purports to overcome privity questions about
third party distribution ad infinitum. This appears to create a new
"right against the world"
15 matches
Mail list logo
