Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!! John Hasler wrote: > > Richard writes: > > If they use my code, then yes. > > No, you do not want to restrict the software of others, nor does the GPL > attempt to do so (such an attempt would be doomed to failure anyway). You > want to restrict derivatives of your software: combinations of your > software and that of someone else.
Yeah, "combinations of your software and that of someone else" form deriviate (hello ueber GNUtian ams) works under unwritten copyleft statute inacted in the GNU Republic by Mr. President RMS and fully explained by GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Eben "Anarchism Triumphant" and "dot Communist Manifesto" Moglen. "Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" http://gplv3.fsf.org/denationalization-dd2.html ------ Works Based On Other Works Although the definition of work based on the Program made use of a legal term of art, derivative work, peculiar to US copyright law, we did not believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated with the use of the term distribution. After all, differently-labeled concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all copyright law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some degree in scope and breadth from the US derivative work was simply a consequence of varying national treatment of the right of altering a copyrighted work. Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of US-specific legal terminology in the work based on the Program definition has come not primarily from readers outside the US, but from those within it, and particularly from members of the technology licensing bar. They have argued that the definition of work based on the Program effectively misstates what a derivative work is under US law, and they have contended that it attempts, by indirect means, to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they consider undesirable. They have also asserted that it confounds the con- cepts of derivative and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, questionably, to be neatly disjoint under US law. We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many other, more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, we realized that here, too, we can eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good effect. Discussion of GPLv3 will be improved by the avoidance of parochial debates over the construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright statute. Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier by replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in description of behavior. Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license further by removing references to derivative works and by providing a more globally useful definition of a work based on another work. We return to the basic principles of users freedom and the common elements of copyright law. Copyright holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new works by modification of the original, a right that may be expressed in various ways in different legal systems. The GPL operates to grant this right to successive generations of users, particularly through the copyleft conditions set forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying of works based on the Program. In section 0 we simply define a work based on another work to mean any modified version for which permission is necessary under applicable copyright law, without further qualifying the nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification includes the addition of material.1 1 We have also removed the paragraph in section 5 that makes reference to derivative or collective works based on the Program. ------- Very good. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss