gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:14:18 +0100

Snit wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen stated in post address@hidden on 2/11/10
> 12:42 PM:
> 
> > On 2/11/2010 2:37 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >> A joint work can be created without any license at all.
> >
> > But when there is a license, the presumption is
> > that the license states the terms.
> >
> >> The GPL doesn't have to say anything about joint works
> >> (just like in the case of no license at all) for a joint
> >> work created that is available to non-coauthors under the
> >> GPL. Coauthors don't need any non-exclusive license --
> >> they have exclusive ownership!!!
> >
> > They cannot be co-authors except as they accept the GPL,
> > because they otherwise have no permission to create a
> > derivative work from GPL-licensed code.
> 
> Their freedom is limited.

The GPL seeks to deny creators of contributions forming derivative work
their copyright ownership in the sense that contributors are purportedly
impeded to license their copyright as they see fit and should use the
GPL and only the GPL instead.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

"“Creator”

The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a
deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate
authors' moral standing above that of ordinary people in order to
justify giving them increased copyright power, which the publishers can
then exercise in their name. We recommend saying “author” instead.
However, in many cases “copyright holder” is what you really mean."

But who said that such pinky-anarchy-commie intent will be enforced in a
capitalist legal system court?

Only utter morons could seriously believe in that.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]