the derivative work "problem" entirely.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 6:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Concurrent Lice
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
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
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
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
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:51:16 -0400, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have noticed this A to B to C argument before, but I am uncertain whether
it is applicable if the GPL has a strong copyleft provision. The GNU GPL is
better viewed as A to B; A to B/C; A to C; A to D; and so
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 01:05:39PM +0100, W . Yip wrote:
The bottom line is that A cannot license what he does not own. And A
certainly cannot own B's copyright to the derivative 'bits' if these indeed
do subsist.
I think this is why the copyleft in the GPL is worded like this:
b) You
"W. Yip" wrote:
But doesn't this omit the fact that B's derivative 'bits' may evoke
copyright subsistence, thereby requiring a concurrent license from B to C
in addition to the license from A to C? Otherwise, C only has license to
the initial program, but not the derivative 'bits'?
Indeed.
Justin Wells wrote:
I think there are two ways to look at this, and I'm not sure which is right:
-- A has implicitly given B permission to sublicense under these terms,
and C gets only a single license from B.
-- C gets a concurrent or joint license from A and B
C has a license
A licensed code to B under the GNU GPL
A licensed code to C under the GNU GPL
A licensed code to D under the GNU GPL
...
B made a derivative work from A's code
B distributes the derivative work to C
B must license his parts to C under the GNU GPL,
What do you think of the following excerpt from a paper I am writing?
I am not very confident about this my argument of concurrent licenses, as
where
A licenses to B licenses to C [under GPL]
In such a case, C receives the GPL from B (s.1+2 GPL) as well as A (s.6
GPL).
Do these licenses
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, W. Yip wrote:
Do these licenses pertain to the relevant bits of the work? For instance,
s.1 +2 gives license to A's source code base, while s.6 gives license to
B's derivative 'bits'? Or are they the same license?
If B code is significant and copyrighted by B, then there
12 matches
Mail list logo
