Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Rahul Dhesi]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
...
>In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they
>don't seem to apply at all.

Your fundamental error was assuming that anything in this discussion
thread made any sense. Rjack sent you all off on the wrong course by
quoting a bunch of irrelevant fragments about derivative works.

Let me yell at you just a little:

  ***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.***

Look them up.

GPL v2 says this:

  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
  whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
  thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
  under the terms of this License.

Here is what the CAFC said in the JMRI case:

  The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the
  open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes,
  rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal
  recognition.  Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently
  speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be
  rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive
  relief.

Thus an open source license can require "disclosure and explanation of
changes", even though this is not a right that a copyright owner gets
under copyright law, and violation of the license can result in
injunctive relief.

In other words, an open source license can impose requirements that go
beyond those promised to the copyright holder by copyright law, and the
remedy for violating those requirements can be injunctive relief.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/