Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

John Halton <johnhalton@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by
> > > > a third party." I think this could threat this software
> > > > freedom.

> On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says
> "OpenVision *retains* copyright" strongly implies that it is simply
> talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any
> copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be
> assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be
> needed.

It's the "derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a
third party" that muddies the water. This could be rationally
interpreted as a claim to "retain" copyright in *all* derived works of
the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created "by
a third party".

That interpretation would fairly easily lead to the conclusion that
the creator of the derivative work *doesn't* have copyright in the
work, since OpenVision's terms explicitly take it away.

> It's still unfortunate to have confusing and unclear language in the
> licence, but it's not non-free.

I'll reserve judgement until we can know that this claim of "retain
copyright" is not all-inclusive.

-- 
 \        "Courteous and efficient self-service." —Café sign, southern |
  `\                                                            France |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney