On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:14:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s196.html > > (s196 of the Copyright Act for Australia)
It's pretty clear that this context has to do with the transfer of ownership on a copyright (which must be accompanied by a written signature), which is different from the grant of copyright to a non-owner. On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Carol writes baz.c, and builds /usr/bin/baz by statically linking each of > foo.o, bar.o, and baz.o. This time, Carol has to abide by both the > GPL and the "X11" license. The GPL says she "must cause [the work] > to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under > the terms of this license". That doesn't require her to license > baz.c like that, but it does require her to license /usr/bin/baz > like that. As this is a derived work based on foo.c, the question > is, can she do this? If not, she's either doing the same thing as > Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense > works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or she's > not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the work as > a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's copyright. This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms. > > This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:06:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Of course it doesn't: you cut out the beginning of the sentence: "If > not, she's either doing the same thing as" Indeed (oops, thanks). Thanks, -- Raul
