Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Chris Travers]

On 9/28/07, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> The flaw in Chris's reasoning is that anything which is not
> forbidden under BSDL (removing the original copyright notice, using the
> author's name
> without permission, suing the author) is allowed.



Is there any doubt that any such uses of the elements originally licensed by
the author under the BSD license are allowed?


  Adding
> additional Ts and Cs to the core BSD set is allowed when creating a
> derivative
> of BSDL code, be they GPL terms or (to pick another prominent usage of
> BSDL licensed code) those of an Apple proprietary end user license.



Funny, the idea that changes can be copyrighted under more restrictive terms
is something I have been saying all along too.

I would point you to Larry Rosen's recent post on the scope of copyrights in
compilations and derivative works to show that one does not gain copyrights
over BSD code merely by using them, nor does the BSD license prevent you
from enforcing more restrictive terms on your own code.

In short, if you modify a BSDL application, your changes are your own, and
you can license them however you wish, provided that they are worthy of
copyright.  FOr example, if I add a sonnet intot he comments of a source
file, I can ask for redistribution royalties fo the source since you are
redistributing my poetry.  In this case, I am merely enforcing my own
copyrights, not changing the license on elements copyrighted by others.  I
think we can all agree on that.

The question is:  GPL v3, Section 7, Paragraph 2 seems to conflict with this
reading because it grants permission for any third party who merely conveys
the software (and hence does not claim copyright over any element in the
affected portion) to remove permissions beyond those of the basic GPL v3.
This is the concern.

In this reading of the license, the BSD license always (and alone) governs
copyrighted elements released under that license even if they are later used
in another work which is, as a whole, released under other terms.  This has
the potential to cause problems if the above paragraph is interpreted as
authorizing the extension of GPL v3 restrictions to BSDL components or
elements without even the requirement that one represents that there are
additional copyrights added under that license.


Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070928/247986ea/attachment.html>