[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> But the GPL only covers distribution. >> >>And copyright law covers derivatives. > > So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program? I > thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a > licence. If I create a modified version of Emacs and don't distribute > it, what allows me to?
The GPL and/or copyright law, depending on your jurisdiction and the details of how you acquired it. The GPL gives a conditional permission, but in many jurisdictions and situations, you actually don't need it since it might be covered by "fair use" as long as you refrain from redistribution. >>Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent. > > So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute > distribution of a derivative work? If so - to go back to my earlier > example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution > of a derivative work of MacOS X? In order not to have to rely on a particular interpretation of this question, the GPL states in section 3: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. -- 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