Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
As usual, I don't know what your point is.
If I read you right, you're claiming that I mis-read my own question --
that I really wasn't asking for clarifcation on why you asserted that
the GPL is not a license.
If I read you right, you think that my citation of this case involving
colorization was presented as something more than an example of a case
based on something other than contract law.
As for the scope of license issue... you seem to be
referring to a principle used in patent law, and a principle
which people think should be incorporated into contract law.
As near as I can tell, you're asserting that in the context of a single
instance of a single work the GPL can be factored into multiple licenses
between a single copyright holder and a single licensee. And, you seem
to be asserting that because this is the case that it's not correct to
refer to the GPL as a license between these two parties, but instead
it is oly correct to refer to the GPL as an offer of contract between
these two parties.
Have I got that right?
If not, PLEASE simply state your point.
If so, I think what you're really saying is that when the GPL uses the
phrase "this license", it does not refer to the "GNU General Public
License" but to some particular instance of its application.
If that's not what you're thinking, could you please state your ideas
In other words, I think you're saying that a court would conclude that
section 4 of the GPL is meaningless -- that the GPL granted the
licensee multiple licenses and that only some of them terminated.
Again, if this is not what you're saying, please make your point more