[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:14:56 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
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.

The revulsion you demonstrate for 17 USC 301 clearly foretells its
potential to destroy your dreams of creating new copyrights
through contractual fiat. Cavalierly dismissing it as "idiocy" won't
make it go away though.

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]