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

Re: libkrb53 - odd license term

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >"OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source 
> >Code,
> >whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" seems like it 
> >tries to
> >claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create.
> This smells bogus, but I believe it's accurate. The original author 
> and the author of the derivative probably *both* have copyrights 
> covering the new work. They do not try to deny a derivative's author 
> copyright. This seems a description of law, hence null.

You're saying that because it doesn't say "retains _exclusive_ copyright",
it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non
OpenVision) portions of the work?  Could be, I guess.  Which would make it
simply a poorly-worded reimplementation of copyright law.

I still don't think the "you are deemed to have accepted the terms of this
licence by the act of *copying*" clause is OK.  I guess, though, in a way
it's another wording of the GPL's "you can't legally get a copy except by
the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you accept this
licence" clause.

Could we get a clarification from the copyright holder on these issues? 
Preferably with slightly better wording, so it doesn't make it look like
they're trying to trick people into signing over their first-born?

- Matt

Reply to: