Re: [!NEWS] The GNUtards Must Be Crazy

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> No distribution of a derivative work is possible WITHOUT **BOTH**
> AUTHORS CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT. This "simply means" that the
> preexisting GPL author demands control of the modifying authors
> copyrights

Distribution of the combined work is only possible under the
combined licenses (not necessarily contractual agreements) of
all the rights holders. The GPL rights holders demand that the
work as a whole be distributed under the GPL. The author of the
additional elements retains full copyright in those elements,
and may do with them as he wishes, but if he wishes to distribute
the combined work, he may only do so under the GPL. You may persist
in your belief that this is somehow illegal, but you are incorrect.

> This violates 17 USC sec. 301(a) which you obviously do not
> understand (and probably have never read).

Just incredible. Preemption has nothing to do with the GPL. In full:
    (a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights
    that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the
    general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works
    of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression
    and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by
    sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date
    and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively
    by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such
    right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law
    or statutes of any State.
It's just preemption. All copyright now comes only from this law.
The GPL is a copyright license. It is baffling how you construe this
to mean anything at all in the context of the GPL. It's as if you
believe chanting "17 USC sec. 301(a)" will magically change your
dross to gold.