Re: Apache v. GPL
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, W. Yip wrote: My final question is this. When literature mentions 'compatibility', do they refer to compatibility of licenses in a situation involving: According to RMS the _only_ way to become compatible to the GPL is to allow for conversion to the GPL. Any restriction which disallows conversion to pure unmodified GPL (incl. additional acknowledge requirements) lead to incompatibility with the GPL. GPL is in the above interpretation _very_ intolerant and restrictive. Regards, -- martin // Martin Konold, Stauffenbergstr. 107, 72074 Tuebingen, Germany // KDE: The most advanced GUI for a reliable OS.
Re: Concurrent Licenses?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:39:12 -0400, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since under copyright law the copyright to all derivative works is owned by the original copyright holder (in this instance "A"), A owns B's derivative, but B is free distribute it. Hence, the GNU GPL controls the distribution terms of B's work and operates as the license between A and C. B's contractual relationship under the GPL is between A and B only. A is always a party to the license. Oh no. I've really set off on a wrong footing for this one. You mean under copyright law A will own copyright to ALL derivative work regardless of the extend they are modified? Can you please give me a reference for A owning the copyright to the derivative work made by B? Is it in the Copyright Act? Thanks
RE: Concurrent Licenses?
Yes, it is a definitional rule of copyright law. Derivative works, by definition, are copyrighted works of the original copyright holder. This is the principle of copyright law upon which the GPL may be used to bring a breach of contract claim or a copyright infringement claim, if the terms are not complied with. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: W. Yip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Concurrent Licenses? On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:39:12 -0400, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since under copyright law the copyright to all derivative works is owned by the original copyright holder (in this instance "A"), A owns B's derivative, but B is free distribute it. Hence, the GNU GPL controls the distribution terms of B's work and operates as the license between A and C. B's contractual relationship under the GPL is between A and B only. A is always a party to the license. Oh no. I've really set off on a wrong footing for this one. You mean under copyright law A will own copyright to ALL derivative work regardless of the extend they are modified? Can you please give me a reference for A owning the copyright to the derivative work made by B? Is it in the Copyright Act? Thanks
RE: Concurrent Licenses?
I have no expertise on UK law so I will accept your interpretation. In the US, copyright holders retain the EXCLUSIVE right to control reproductions, performances, displays, distribution AND the creation of derivative works. Copyright law in the US is complex, confusing, and has a lot of grey areas, but on this point the law is axiomatic. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Richard Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Watts Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Concurrent Licenses? On Wednesday 12 April 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it is a definitional rule of copyright law. Derivative works, by definition, are copyrighted works of the original copyright holder. [ IANAL, but.. ] Really ? That might be the rule in the US, but in the UK, AIR, both the original copyright holder (A) and the maker of the derived work (B) have an interest (provided the derivation is non-trivial in the copyright sense), so although A can stop B doing any of the restricted acts to the derived work, B can similarly stop A (however, I can't find any authority on this either way just at the moment). Of course, the typical tactic in these situations is to force delivery up of the rights in the derivation as part of the settlement, but it was a nice try :-). [snip] Richard.
Re: Concurrent Licenses?
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit: I have no expertise on UK law so I will accept your interpretation. In the US, copyright holders retain the EXCLUSIVE right to control reproductions, performances, displays, distribution AND the creation of derivative works. I think the point being discussed is: Who has the right to control the reporductions, performances, displays and distribution OF derivative works that are made under license from the original creator: the original creator (A), or the creator of the derivative work (B)? In particular, if B has any rights as against the world, does he also have rights against A? If I write a novel, and you make it into a film under license from me, I can't make copies of the film without a cross-license from you, no? If the film;s copyright is infringed, only you can sue, no? -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
