Re: What exactly is Derivative ?
Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the
> right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative
of the GPL'd work, under copyright law, then how can the terms of the
GPL (including its definition of 'derivative') possibly affect me?
Remember, I have not signed any contract with the author.
> I think it would be entirely appropriate for the GPL to have an extensive
> definitions section. Otherwise, individual coders can make their own
This is a practical matter, and I am not sure if it is a good idea. The
NPL tried this, and in my opinion it's become an unreadable mess because
of it. The lawyers may like it, but the programmers don't :)
(Certainly I would have packaged Mozilla for Debian as soon as it came
out, if I had been able to figure out my responsibilities under the
NPL. Now it's an orphaned package.)
> The holder of the copy of a GPLed app has a contract with the author to do
> or not to do certain things according the the license.
Ah, I think this claim could use some explanation. It's the key point
for the first paragraph above. At what point do I become bound to this
contract? I don't think that I do, at all, until I try to do something
with the GPLed app that copyright law does not allow me to.
> The holder of the copyright in the copy owns the right to revoke the
> license, change the license,
Hmm, then what use is the license? If the copyright holder can change
it at will (you do mean for _existing_ copies?), then the license is
meaningless, and no software is free.