David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... >In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they >don't seem to apply at all.
Your fundamental error was assuming that anything in this discussion thread made any sense. Rjack sent you all off on the wrong course by quoting a bunch of irrelevant fragments about derivative works. Let me yell at you just a little: ***NEITHER GPL V2 NOR GPL V3 MENTIONS DERIVATIVE WORKS.*** Look them up. GPL v2 says this: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Here is what the CAFC said in the JMRI case: The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief. Thus an open source license can require "disclosure and explanation of changes", even though this is not a right that a copyright owner gets under copyright law, and violation of the license can result in injunctive relief. In other words, an open source license can impose requirements that go beyond those promised to the copyright holder by copyright law, and the remedy for violating those requirements can be injunctive relief. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
