Concurrent Licenses?

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

Yes, it is a definitional rule of copyright law. Derivative works, by
definition, are copyrighted works of the original copyright holder. This is
the principle of copyright law upon which the GPL may be used to bring a
breach of contract claim or a copyright infringement claim, if the terms are
not complied with.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Yip [mailto:weng at yours.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 8:54 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Concurrent Licenses?
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:39:12 -0400, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
> <rod at cyberspaces.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oh no. I've really set off on a wrong footing for this one. You mean under
> copyright law A will own copyright to ALL derivative work
> regardless of the
> extend they are modified?
>
> Can you please give me a reference for A owning the copyright to the
> derivative work made by B? Is it in the Copyright Act?
>
> Thanks
>