Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Chris Travers]

On 9/29/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com]wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Correct, but only if all the rest was not licenced under GPLv2 [or GPLv3],
> for example if the rest was licenced under BSD licence, or is now Public
> Domain.



Note that Alexander conveniently neglected Mr Rosen's point that:
"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."

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070929/53b0315f/attachment.html>