Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > How many times do you have to be told that the Copyright Act 
> > does not grant an *EXCLUSIVE RIGHT* to control the distribution
> >  of a derivative work "as a whole"?
>
> The copyright acts grants the exclusive right to authorize the 
> copying and distribution of a specific work. Inherent in that 
> exclusive right is the right to control the details of that 
> authorization, exemplified by book authors selling hardcover and 
> paperback publication rights to separate publishers.
>
> The GPL is not asserting control over distributing the combined 
> or derivative work as a whole. It simply says that if you wish to
>  copy and distribute the covered work as part of a combined or 
> derivative work, you may do this only if you distribute the work 
> as a whole under the GPL.

That's fine. . . if it's in the privity of contract. Attempting
to bind all third parties under the GPL provisions is against public
policy (unenforceable).

> If you can't or won't do that, you have no permission to include 
> the GPLed work in the combined work. Nothing forces the copyright
>  holder of the GPLed work to grant such permission, and copyright
>  law forbids copying and distributing the GPLed work as part of a
>  combined work absent that permission.

Just because contractual agreements are voluntary doesn't make
any illegal terms in those agreements enforceable.