[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL question

From: Richard Tobin
Subject: Re: GPL question
Date: 17 May 2007 14:01:56 GMT

In article <85d50zy3d0.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <> wrote:

>> But the GPL only covers distribution.
>And copyright law covers derivatives.

So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program?  I
thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a
licence.  If I create a modified version of Emacs and don't distribute
it, what allows me to?

>> To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two
>> things:
>The whole hinges on the question whether he has done two things or
>one.  Namely whether they can be legally considered completely
>> distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and
>> contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline.  Which of
>> these requires a licence?
>Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent.

So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work?  If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution of a
derivative work of MacOS X?

-- Richard
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

reply via email to

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