Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 01:00:50 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009350051.1df0ee@mired.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <15394.56866.830152.580700@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <0en10ey5jo.10e@localhost.localdomain> <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net> types: > "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009336534.95d7c6@mired.org> writes: > My "combine copies" was loose writing. I doubt it makes much difference > which term from 17 USC it most closely matches as far as my argument > goes, but for the case being discussed I suppose it would have been > better to say something like "create a collective work" or maybe just > "derivative". > > > This sounds like it's possible for party A to license software S from > > party B, then have the terms of the license changed by party C by > > "combining copies", even though they have nothing to do with A, B or > > any rights to S. That one is a bit hard to swallow. > > I'm not sure I understand the scenario, or at least the reason for it. > > C could "combine copies" of S and something else and create a collective > work (which I think can also be called a "derivative"), but, not owning > S or having license to use it, may not copy or distribute copies of such > work. (Actually, combining copies probably constitutes copying of the > parts an so he probably can't even create the original copy.) > > He certainly may not change any license on S, unless there's something > in this scenario you haven't told me (like something's BSDL'd or GPL'd). Ok, here's a more concrete scenario. B distributes S under BSDL, which is how A gets it. This also means that C can get a copy and redistribute it. In particular, combining C with software T, which is GPL'ed. From what you said earlier, all versions of S are now covered by the GPL, even though the original license was BSDL, not GPL. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15394.56866.830152.580700>