Copyright Act preempts the wave theory of light
bsdprotector at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 13 02:45:49 UTC 2004
--- Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Can we stop these posts already?
With all due respect, this mailing list is called:
1. GPL is a license.
2. It is being discussed.
I do not see what the problem here is. Also, note that
implications of that discussion might affect other
licenses, namely Open Software License 2.0. See 1(c)
of the OSL v. 2.0:
c) to distribute copies of the Original Work and
Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that
copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You
distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software
Just as "viral" as the GPL.
I would further claim that every single license that
requires conditions to be repeated "ad infinitum"
(i.e. self perpetuating conditions) is in fact viral,
at least partially. This would then mean, in terms of
contract law, "universal privity", which is a problem
So, the intention of the discussion is to determine
1. Does Copyright Act give explicit rights to license
without requiring additional legal machinery?
2. Does Copyright Act give explicit rights to put
conditions on the above licensing?
3. Does Copyright Act require, demand or imply a
contract between owners of copyright for a copyrighted
work to be used in a manner defined in section 106? Or
does it recongnize the multiple unilateral permission
as sufficient to do so?
4. Can Copyright Act provide standalone protection for
copyrighted works or does it require other legal
machinery to do so?
By answering the above questions we'll be closer to
determining if there is such a thing as "bare license"
or "copyright license" and if GPL, OSL etc. are in
fact examples of such licenses. I see this as very
important, given the amount of code that's released daily.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss