|
From: | Anthonys Lists |
Subject: | Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL |
Date: | Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:50:17 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 |
On 02/04/2013 23:31, David Kastrup wrote:
Anthonys Lists <address@hidden> writes:If they DID relicence it, then it is copyrightableNonsense. An explicit license can be given for things not actually requiring a license for particular uses under current legal standards. It is a pledge "if you follow these rules, I won't drag you to court over use of this material", and if that explicit pledge is broken, the complaint is very likely to just get tossed without incurring significant costs.
Except that they didn't own any copyright in any of the header (or I assume so). The point I'm making is that "if a licence was needed, then Google had no right to grant it".
So what Google did was, effectively, say "if you follow these rules, I won't sue you for trespassing on my neighbour's property". Even worse, if it were copyrightable, Google would be inciting people to break copyright.
That is totally different from opining some material to not be copyrightable. You might need to convince a court explicitly then, and particularly in the U.S., that can be a rather expensive feat even if you prevail.
Agreed. Cheers, Wol
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |