[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I suspect this reply was too large and hence has not been sent to the
list. This is part 1.
Paul Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 02:04:09PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>> The author gives away "ownership" when using a copyleft licence.
>
> Not at all, they grant people permission to copy their work according
> to the terms of the GPL. They still own copyright on the work.
Copyright != ownership.
Copyright is undoubtedly in force but it is a mistake to use the word
"own" in that context. Copyright is granted automatically but the
software does not have an owner.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
> Once the work has been copied under terms of the GPL, then those
> terms stick.
Of course.
>
> All the GPL is is an OPTIONAL license that allows you to copy the
> licensed code without breaking copyright law. You can negotiate a
> different license with they copyright owner (Trolltech/QT allow this,
> for example).
For a new licence to be granted, ALL copyright holders must agree. If a
single copyright holder refuses permission to distribute their
contribution under the new licence, that code must be replaced or their
copyright is infringed.
The GPL does NOT allow the copyrighted material to be transferred to a
different licence without permission - to do so would allow a
coach-and-horses through the GPL because anyone could do what the FEMM
author tried to do.
> You could argue that the act of running a computer program creates a
> copy in memory, and therefore is forbidden without a specific license
> to copy from the copyright holder, but that's a whole other issue.
It's only an extension of the same issue - and yes, certain licences
could be construed that way.
> Originally written by Ron Minnich, his original version is
> copyrighted ("owned" as you will)
No. The copyright holder does NOT *own* the software. Once released
under the GPL, that software can be "forked" by anyone and they have as
much freedom as anyone else to completely rewrite the entire source code
in ways that the original author would simply not want done. The author
has NO right to prevent this - he does not own the software and cannot
therefore impose ANY restrictions on the fork team. This is specifically
required under the GPL.
> Modifications by Eric Van Hensbergen, those modifications are owned
> by him.
No, they are not owned at all. His copyright will remain LONG after all
his code has been completely rewritten. After a few code churns, there
may be nothing left of the original code - nothing for him to own - yet
his copyright still remains.
> Ron can't take the modifications and reuse them unless he
> complies with the terms of the GPL.
True - these modifications were submitted under the GPL and therefore
the GPL applies to their use.
(continued . . . )
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html