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
> >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
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?