On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 07:27:49PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > I afraid this is not -- so at least for some jurisdictions. I am not a > lawyer, but it happened that I have been closely watching a lawsuit in > Russia, where the plaintiff alleged that title is an important part of > a copyrighted work. In other word, the theory was that if I make a > movie "Moby Dick" completely unrelated to the famous novel, I am > probably fine, but if I publish a *novel* "Moby Dick", I might violate > copyright, especially if my novel has important parallels. *shrug* This sounds like something that has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Song titles and movie titles in North America and Western Europe have been reused freely. > > 2) Free Software copyright licenses should not attempt to achieve via > > their license what would not ordinarily be achievable through copyright > > I can only quote GPL here: [snip] > Modification and redistribution is expressly forbidden by the > copyright law unless specifically granted. If the license grants this > right under certain conditions, these conditions apply. Your point? Free Software copyright licenses should not attempt to achieve via their terms what would not ordinarily be achievable through copyright law. The terms and conditions of the GNU GPL are entirely within the scope of copyright law. > GPL discriminates agains those, who want to take somebody else's > programs from the free software world. Some people think this is > illegitimate and cannot be achieved through copyright laws. I along > with Stallman think this reasoning is wrong. From the legal standpoint > an author can put virtually any conditions on redistribution. If some > work can be redistributed only by Christian Scientists, it will be > so. > > A moral standpoint is different. Certain restrictions, while legally > permissible, might be inconsistent with the understanding of the word > "free" -- we are speaking on free licenses here. Well, your > understanding of this word is different from mine. This is fine. The above screed is completely irrelevant to my statements. My message was not about the GNU GPL. If you want to gripe about the GNU GPL, or misrepresent my remarks in an effort to rhetoric me into some corner regarding the GNU GPL, please do so in a different thread. Until and unless the LaTeX Project considers applying the GNU GPL to their works, the GNU GPL is almost totally irrelevant to the present discussion. Maybe you're just playing devil's advocate; in any event, I am not in the mood to argue about the GNU GPL at present. There, I've said it three times, maybe you'll get it... -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk branden@debian.org | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Attachment:
pgpNypV_YYbyT.pgp
Description: PGP signature