Concurrent Licenses?

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

> 	A licensed code to B under the GNU GPL
> 	A licensed code to C under the GNU GPL
> 	A licensed code to D under the GNU GPL
> 	...
> 	B made a derivative work from A's code
> 	B distributes the derivative work to C
> 	B must license his parts to C under the GNU GPL,
> 		because if he does not, he has no rights from A any more.
This is a very good diagram.  I would only quibble with the last line. Since
under copyright law the copyright to all derivative works is owned by the
original copyright holder (in this instance "A"), A owns B's derivative, but
B is free distribute it. Hence, the GNU GPL controls the distribution terms
of B's work and operates as the license between A and C. B's contractual
relationship under the GPL is between A and B only. A is always a party to
the license.

If we were dsicussing a GPL with a weak copyleft provision (like the NPL),
then you my have contractual relationships that do not include A at all.

>
> > The bottom line is that A cannot license what he does not own. And A
> > certainly cannot own B's copyright to the derivative 'bits' if
> these indeed
> > do subsist.
>
> No, but A can make it a condition of B's license to create derivative
> works that he license his bits under the GNU GPL.
>
> > Please explain what is "GPLs with no copyleft".
>
> The term "GPL" is used equivocally in the literature: usually it means
> the specific GNU General Public License; sometimes it refers to any
> general public license, such as the X/MIT/newBSD license, the
> oldBSD/Apache
> license, the Artistic License, and even unfree ones like the Aladdin
> Public License.
>
> These licenses do not impose any restrictions on the makers of derivative
> works, and so lack the essential copyleft principle.  They have been
> called "copycenter" licenses: i.e., take the code to the copy center and
> make as many copies (or derivative works) as you want.
The copycenter metaphor is more cute than descriptive of the weak copyleft.
The caution is that it does not distinguish the two types of licenses since
works under any public license may be freely copied. It's the fact that the
terms of the GPL, itself, may be altered when there is a weak or no
copyleft. (The Public Domain problem that copyleft avoids).



Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org