[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL question
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: GPL question |
Date: |
Tue, 15 May 2007 17:22:36 +0200 |
Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> In article <4649C726.51BD057@web.de>,
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>
> >> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
> >> wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?
> >
> >What do you mean?
>
> I have some software. Someone else wants to use my software in their
> project, and distribute the result. I don't want them to be able to
> do that unless they distribute their own source and allow others to
> redistribute it.
>
> You claim that the GPL doesn't have that effect, because the other
> project is merely a "compilation". So how should I word my licence
> to achieve the effect I desire?
You may try to state that under your contract "mere aggregation" (in
GNU speak) triggers the same obligations as derivative work and that
it encompassing all works in a compilation/aggregation. Then you just
hope that it can withstand challenges under doctrines of preemption,
misuse, and whatnot (such as lack of contract formation and
distribution under 17 USC 109/117 instead, etc.).
regards,
alexander.
- Re: GPL question, (continued)
Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Richard Tobin, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, John Hasler, 2007/05/15
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/16
- Re: GPL question, Alexander Terekhov, 2007/05/16
Re: GPL question, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2007/05/15
Message not available