Re: GPL-licensed packages with depend-chain to OpenSSL
On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:53:35 +0100, MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> On 2004-09-06 02:24:58 +0100 Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are definitely implicit copyright licenses in (US) copyright
> > case law.
>
> In general, that only concerns us if US law is the one being applied.
> I don't think either GPL (for libcurl) or OpenSSL specify US law. If
> it's not US law, do we still have the idea of implicit copyright
> licences?
That's really the beauty of the GPL... it works in over 70 different
copyright regimes around the world. You'd have to ask a legal scholar
in each regime about any caselaw involving implicit copyright
licenses.
In the US, there have been rulings like Effects Associates, Inc. v.
Larry Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990)[1] that have established
implicit nonexclusive licensing.
[1] This is an especially interesting read... it starts off with,
"What we have here is a failure to compensate." and concerns a dispute
between a B-movie director and a special effects crew.
http://www.kentlaw.edu/e-Ukraine/copyright/cases/effects_v_cohen.html
Joe
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
Reply to: