[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU licenses

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GNU licenses
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:43:10 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Alexander Terekhov <> writes:

> wrote:
> [...]
>> So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!:
>> 1. Make non-GPL program.
>> 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program.
>> 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL.
>> 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original*
>> part of said combined work and put it in another
>> original work, this time one with NObody else's code
>> in it,
>> 5. Release that closed-source and non-GPL
> You may have problems enforcing (against strangers) your copyright
> (and patents) in "_original work_ from the *original* part of said
> combined work" after step 3 because in spite of step 5, your work is
> still available under the GPL to the entire general public.

Not at all.  He can still _fully_ assert his copyright on those parts.
That means he can demand that recipients _obey_ his license terms
corresponding to the version they have acquired access to.  If it is
the GPLed version, he can enforce the GPL's conditions on the

> Infringes will simply claim that they are GPL licensees and just ask
> you what do you want them to do in order to cure whatever
> deficiencies in their performance. They may also try to invalidate
> the GPL on the grounds of copyright misuse/antitrust... and, on
> success, that would cause copyright impotence for all GPL infected
> copyrights.

That is the usual Terekhov-babble.  Since the courts don't show a
history of falling for that, nothing one would need to worry about.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]