Richard Tobin wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexander "Plonker" Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Typical Terekhov twisting. I ask when you have a right to distribute, > >> and you reply that you have a right to create. > > >Under US Code Title 17, an owner of a copy "lawfully made" has a right > >to distribute it "WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER". 17 USC > >109. > > That's about selling your copy, not distributing derivative works.
You're confused. 17 USC 109 is about distribution of copies (material objects) "lawfully made" except one special class of copies made under 17 USC 117 because 17 USC 117 itself imposes restrictions on their distribution (additional "exact" copies must be distributed "along with the copy from which such copies were prepared" and distribution of "adaptations" under 17 USC 117 requires permission... so that copyright owners in original works can collect extra $$$ for distribution of 17 USC 117 adaptations or simply not allow this activity so that it doesn't interfere in market with licensed derivative works and/or originals). But when a copy (material object) is made under copyright license grants to reproduce and also create derivative works (*not* under 17 USC 117 which requires ownership of a preexisting copy to begin with), it doesn't matter whether it's an exact copy or a copy of a derivative work. The GPL requires to surrender the right codified in 17 USC 109 to distribute without authority of the copyright owner (it mandates various requirements to provide written offers, etc.). A copy is "lawfully made" if it is made by the copyright owner or made under copyright license grants (copies made under exceptions to the copyright owner's exclusive rights aside of a moment). > > And 117 is about modifying for your own use, not distributing > derivative works. > > Try again? Go on. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
