Re: EASTERBROOK's "quick look" on the GPL and Wallace's claim

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright.
>
> "For the past ten years a software copyright and patent license has
> been circulated by way of the Internet.

So you agree.

>> > Copyleft requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for
>> > derivative works.
>> 
>> Or negotiate different license terms.  Without copyleft, you _only_
>> have the choice of negotiating different license terms.
>
> Go try to negotiating different license terms for GPL'd stuff in
> Linux.

Go try to negotiate different license terms for the EULA'd stuff in
Windows.  Or Java from Sun (they are about to relicense, but it took
them a lot of work to get into the position to do so, apparently).

It is not different with any other license when multiple authors are
involved.

> And, BTW, according to EASTERBROOK, "the GPL propagates from user to
> user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any
> creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the
> software or allow any successor to charge."
>
> Got it?

Well, I hope not.  The above sounds a bit confused, or at least
sloppily worded.  Certainly the original author is free to charge
whatever he wants for whatever licensed versions.

>> > "Copyright law gives authors a right to charge more".
>> 
>> Sure, for their own works.
>
> What do you mean? That improver's copyright in a derivative work is
> less copyright (with less rights that copyright law gives authors)
> than copyright in original work?

No, but it can't be exercised independently from the copyright of the
work that his is derived upon.

> That's copyleft logic, not copyright.

Believe what you will.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum