Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> > Karl Goetz <kamping_kaiser@internode.on.net> writes:
> > 
> > > * line 81-83: "OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative
> > > works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a
> > > third party." I think this could threat this software freedom.
> > 
> > Yes. This adds a requirement that doesn't exist under copyright
> > law: "you, the creator of a derivative work, will surrender
> > copyright in that work to OpenVision". That's a significant cost
> > to pay, and it's written in the license as a term of deriving the
> > work at all.
> 
> AIUI this says that openvision has copyright to derivative works,
> which is a fact anyway. There can be multiple copyright holders, and
> in the case of a derivative work created by a third party, there
> will be. I don't see what's non-free about that?

The "may be non-free" aspect was the requirement of requiring the
creator of the derivative work to surrender their copyright to
OpenVision. If such a requirement were in place in the license terms,
I would regard it as non-free.

I hadn't thought of the interpretation that this clause is merely
asserting that OpenVision retains copyright *in the parts of the work
to which they already had copyright*. It's not clear whether this is
intended to apply *also* to the creative work introduced in the
derivative work.

-- 
 \     "[The RIAA] have the patience to keep stomping. They're playing |
  `\      whack-a-mole with an infinite supply of tokens."  -- kennon, |
_o__)                                             http://kuro5hin.org/ |
Ben Finney