[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:16:52 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works.
You are not only incorrect, you helpfully post refutations to your own assertions!

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting

This simply means that the creator of a derivative work or compilation gains no special rights to the preexisting material.
 This is precisely what gives the GPL its force.

The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

This simply means, given that copyrights are time limited, that creating a derivative or combined work does not lengthen the copyright period of the preexisting material.

This "simply means" the contributed material belongs exclusively to
the modifying author. Since the preexisting material and the
contributed material are under *separate* copyrights (§ 103 (b)).

No distribution of a derivative work is possible WITHOUT **BOTH**
AUTHORS CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. This "simply means" that the
preexisting GPL author demands control of the modifying authors

1) to all third parties
2) without charge
3) in all future derivative works (under the terms of the GPL)

This violates 17 USC sec. 301(a) which you obviously do not
understand (and probably have never read).

That tautology is true of any contract -- you don't *have* to accept it. That fact doesn't make an illegal term in a contract
 any less illegal since, presumably, some folks want the GPL to
 have legal effect.

Fortunately, the terms of the GPL are thoroughly legal. See this:


GNU fans never lose, they just mooooooooooooooove the goalposts.

the difference between "obiter dicta" and "rationes decidendi"

Spin and twist, twist and spin. There's always some excuse to disregard the obvious truth. But you fool only yourself.

We often mock what we do not understand. Try educating yourself
before you place foot-in-mouth.

As I have said before, the place where the FSF is persistently incorrect is in maintaining that a program which dynamically links to GPLed code is itself bound by the GPL. But that is not an illegal provision in the GPL. The GPL will simply not apply in such a case because there has been no use of GPLed material in the program.

You're as full of bullshit as your so called legal "expert" Eben
Moglen, who still doesn't understand that a copyright license *IS* a

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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