Subject: Re: Release comercial application's sources as GPL but with restriction in usage
From: Roddixon <roddixon@cyberspaces.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:31 -0400

As for who is "wrong,"  I certainly wish that you spent more energy reading 
and less on writing.  

Rod
------------
Rod Dixon
www.cyberspaces.org

...... Original Message .......
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:19:40 -0500 Evan Prodromou <evan@bad.dynu.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-16-02 at 19:33 -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. quoted above
>text:
>> >> Nor could the GPL legally preclude one from charging for the
>> >> distribution of a  "modification" for which you (the licensee) own the
>> >> copyright - - in my opinion.
>> >
>> > Your opinion is incorrect. Copyright holders in Berne Convention
>> > countries can control how derivative works are distributed.
>> >
>> I think Evan misunderstood my point, ...at any rate, we seem to be 
saying 
>> exactly the same thing.
>
>That wasn't my intent, since what you are saying is wrong.
>
>You said that the GPL _could_not_ preclude charging for distribution of
>derivative works. I agree that it _does_not_, but I think that it
>_could_. There are plenty of (non-Open-Source) licenses that don't allow
>the licensee to receive compensation for distributing derivative works.
>The licensor gets to make these restrictions because copyright owners
>have some control over distribution of derivative works.
>
>If the licensee makes a modification to a work, that modification is a
>derivative work and subject to the licensor's whims. Which is why, say,
>I can't sell T-shirts with pictures of the Little Mermaid with a
>Salvador Dali moustache.
>
>~Evan
>
>-- 
>Evan Prodromou
>evan@bad.dynu.ca
>