Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey lazy GNUtian dak, why don't you simply read the paper before > starting to exibit your stupidity as usual? > > ------ > 2. GPL Terminology and Interpretation > > a) “Works based on the Program” > > The first operative Section of the GPL (Section 0) reads as follows: > > This License applies to any program or other work which contains a > notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under > the terms of this General Public License. The ‘Program,’ below, refers > to any such program or work, and a ‘work based on the Program’ means > either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read this again and try understanding what "under copyright law means". > Along these lines, the second sentence of Section 0 defines “works > based on the Program” as the Program itself or “any derivative work > under copyright law” followed by a (not entirely accurate) > interpretive explanation regarding what the term “derivative works” > means under copyright law. This explanation, introduced with “that > is to say,” gives an indication of what the GPL drafters thought, > hoped or may argue in a dispute, is the meaning of the term > “derivative works.” Section 2 of the GPL contains additional > explanations and declarations of intent, which even include > “collective works,” i.e., a term defined by the Copyright Act in > contrast to the term “derivative work.”250 In order to resolve these > textinternal contradictions, it would seem appropriate to rely on > the “operative” portion of the definition in Section 0 (which > contains the reference to the Copyright Act) and treat the > “explanatory notes” as statements of opinion that have been added > for convenience purposes only.251 Accordingly, the GPL would be > interpreted to define “work based on the Program” to mean > “derivative work as defined by the Copyright Act.”252 So where is the problem? [...] > Taken out of context, each of these terms seems to go "Taken out of context"... > In context, however, it appears that the drafters of the GPL > randomly chose substitutes to the somewhat awkward term “work based > on the Program” and used the substitute terms synonymously to > improve the sentence flow and readability. This impression is > confirmed throughout the document, which also uses other > substitutes, including the “derivative or collective works based on > the Program”257 and “derivative works.”258 > > Some of the explanations throughout the GPL as well as the Free > Software Foundation’s FAQ259 and “Lesser General Public License”260 > imply that the drafters of the GPL intended to cover software > combinations that would not qualify as derivative works under the > Copyright Act according to the test developed in this Article.261 > This is primarily evidence of a difference of opinion in the > application of copyright law––and does not have to mean that the > condition in Section 2(b) of the GPL covers more than derivative > works as defined by the Copyright Act. Yet, uncertainties remain > given the fact that the “explanations” appear within the license > text. ------ Well, did you read what you quoted? It says exactly what everybody is telling you: copyright misuse is not a question since the GPL does not even try or claim to do anything beyond the scope of copyright. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
