[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

> >  Here's where you start running into problems: GPL#2 requires you
> >  satisfy GPL#1 for the modified work, which now includes stuff you do
> >  not have the right to put under GPL's terms.

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:09:50PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> yeah, but as I did not redistribute (licensing/sublicensing) my derived 
> work yet, so I'm not in trouble ...

But you made copies, and those copies weren't a part of normal use of
the software.

And [U.S.] copyright law says that the owner of the copyright has the
exclusive right to copy the work, and to authorize copies.

> >  What are the appropriate license notices you've placed? How do they
> They are not appropriate LICENSE notices, they are COPYRIGHT notices:

Section 1 requires the notices of license be intact.

Those notices of license mean that the work as a whole must be licensed
under the terms of the GPL.

> >  satisfy the GPL requirements about the license on the work as a
> >  whole?
> GPL#2(b) only applies to distribution. I'll quote it to you, again:

What happened to the introductory part of GPL#2?

> >  And then there's the copies you would need to make for test and debug
> >  purposes...
> those are ok.

According to copyright law, only the owner of the copyright can authorize
their creation.  At least, that's the way it works in the U.S.

The GPL gives you permission to make them, as long as you license the
resulting work properly.

> >  Of course, if this is done in a jurisdiction where copyright isn't
> >  required for these copies then there is no issue. Also, until the
> It is not the case that copyright isn't required, is more accurately: 
> once you have a valid license to a piece of software, the copies 
> involved in its use are fair game.

Ah, maybe making a derived work constitutes normal use of the program?

That... would be interesting.  Especially with some proprietary software.


Reply to: