Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 9/29/07, muddying the water, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov erroneously suggested:
> *    Copyright (c) 2007 GPL Developer Who Made Changes <gpl at example.org>
> *
> *    This file incorporates modifications covered by the GPL... [blah blah]
>
> Your "blah blah" is wrong. The correct notices would be:
>
>   Copyright (C) 2007 GPL Developer Who Made Changes.
>   This file is licensed under the GPLv2 [or GPLv3].
>
> I'm serious: This [entire!] file is licensed under the GPLv2 [or GPLv3]!

I'm also serious: only modifications are licensed under the GPL, not
the entire file.

[snip proclamations regarding AFL/OSL]

> The same relationship is true for any code combined legally into
> GPL-licensed software, including Apache and Eclipse and BSD software,
> although the requirements to retain notices in the source code or elsewhere
> may differ in these licenses. But from a licensing perspective, the entire
> Changed Work is under the GPL; the original components--or what remains of
> them in the source code--remain licensed under their respective licenses.

So how come that the "entire!" file is under the GPL?

>
> The Changed Work is allowed only because the original open source licenses
> on the contributions authorize the making and distribution of changes. I
> call that "sublicensing", although some lawyers prefer to view it as

Your calling that "sublicensing" doesn't make it so.

The act of sublicensing is what happens when a licensee becomes a
licensor to some other party by granting some or all of the rights
that they received as a licensee.  The recipient of BSDL'd material
gets a license from the original licensor -- without the middleman
getting a chance to do anything at all regarding granting some or all
of the rights that middleman received as a licensee. The middleman may
or may not grant rights to his modifications though.

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                           -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor