[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:15:55 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to
sublicense under the GPL) and pretending that "a whole" is
under the GPL is utter legal nonsense.
Fortunately, such permission is given: <> 2. Grant of
Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

It can be sublicensed but preserving original terms for material licensed under the Apache License. The License defines the term Derivative Works:

"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or
Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for
which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of
authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works
shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely
link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and
Derivative Works thereof.

such that "a whole" doesn't include the preexisting material.

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications
and may provide additional or different license terms and
conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your
modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole,
provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work
otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."

but that has nothing to do with "a whole" in the GNUish sense.

Give up Alex. You'll never convince the Freetards that 17 USC sec.
103(b) exists:

"(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 material.
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."

The Freetards have moooooooooooooooooooooved that specific section
right out of the Copyright Act and banished it from their GNU Republic.


reply via email to

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