Re: GPL/LGPL confusion
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:14:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s196.html
>
> (s196 of the Copyright Act for Australia)
It's pretty clear that this context has to do with the transfer of
ownership on a copyright (which must be accompanied by a written
signature), which is different from the grant of copyright to a
non-owner.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:38:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Carol writes baz.c, and builds /usr/bin/baz by statically linking each of
> foo.o, bar.o, and baz.o. This time, Carol has to abide by both the
> GPL and the "X11" license. The GPL says she "must cause [the work]
> to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under
> the terms of this license". That doesn't require her to license
> baz.c like that, but it does require her to license /usr/bin/baz
> like that. As this is a derived work based on foo.c, the question
> is, can she do this? If not, she's either doing the same thing as
> Bob did last time and misrepresenting her ability to sublicense
> works based on foo.c and infringing on Alice's copyright, or she's
> not abiding by the terms of the GPL (ie, not licensing the work as
> a whole in the proper way), and thus infringing on Bob's copyright.
This is based on the false idea that one must be the copyright owner
on the components of a derived or compiled work in order to ensure that
the the entirety of that work is available under some license terms.
> > This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 02:06:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of course it doesn't: you cut out the beginning of the sentence: "If
> not, she's either doing the same thing as"
Indeed (oops, thanks).
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: