[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:44:00 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Rjack wrote:
False. The GPL itself defines what it means by "based", and that
definition states that it describes a work other than a verbatim
copy whose production requires copyright permission.

Uh... you can't define your own copyright law and expect a federal court to enforce your new definition. Read 17 USC sec. 301.

I see you're back to your usual preemption idiocy. Preemption
is irrelevant to this discussion since we are talking about the
federal statutes governing copyright.

No one is defining a new copyright law. The GPL is defining the
word "based" for use within itself. The collective work formed
by creating a statically linked executable using separate elements
requires permission from the copyright holders of those elements
to be copied and distributed, under the copyright laws of the US.
Read 17 USC sec. 201.

reply via email to

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