Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> Last time I looked, the case _did_ involve copyright. > > "For the past ten years a software copyright and patent license has > been circulated by way of the Internet.
So you agree. >> > Copyleft requires all licensees to surrender right to charge for >> > derivative works. >> >> Or negotiate different license terms. Without copyleft, you _only_ >> have the choice of negotiating different license terms. > > Go try to negotiating different license terms for GPL'd stuff in > Linux. Go try to negotiate different license terms for the EULA'd stuff in Windows. Or Java from Sun (they are about to relicense, but it took them a lot of work to get into the position to do so, apparently). It is not different with any other license when multiple authors are involved. > And, BTW, according to EASTERBROOK, "the GPL propagates from user to > user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any > creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the > software or allow any successor to charge." > > Got it? Well, I hope not. The above sounds a bit confused, or at least sloppily worded. Certainly the original author is free to charge whatever he wants for whatever licensed versions. >> > "Copyright law gives authors a right to charge more". >> >> Sure, for their own works. > > What do you mean? That improver's copyright in a derivative work is > less copyright (with less rights that copyright law gives authors) > than copyright in original work? No, but it can't be exercised independently from the copyright of the work that his is derived upon. > That's copyleft logic, not copyright. Believe what you will. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
