Subject: Re: Scope of copyright on derivative works
From: dlw <danw6144@insightbb.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:01:04 -0400
Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:01:04 -0400
>  The entire "Changed Work" is NOT under the GPL.

Only the *owner* of a copyrighted work may *license* his original work.

17 USC sec. 106 says:
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the *owner* of copyright under 
this title has the *exclusive*
rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . ."

 If multiple individual *owners* of the different works comprising a 
derivative work  *contractually* agree to
distribute their respective original works under a common license they 
may do so -- but that principle absolutely
*FORBIDS* the GPL from being used to license derivative works because 
the GPL is a "license and not a contract"
-- at least according to the Free Software Foundation.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Hmmmmmmm.....





> The entire "Changed Work" is NOT under the GPL.

Only the *owner* of a copyrighted work may *license* his original work.

17 USC sec. 106 says:
"Subject to sections 107 through 122, the *owner* of copyright under this title has the *exclusive*
rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . ."

 If multiple individual *owners* of the different works comprising a derivative work  *contractually* agree to
distribute their respective original works under a common license they may do so -- but that principle absolutely
*FORBIDS* the GPL from being used to license derivative works because the GPL is a "license and not a contract"
-- at least according to the Free Software Foundation.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

Hmmmmmmm.....