Re: [Fwd: Re: [gNewSense-users] PFV call for help.]
Julien Cristau <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Karl Goetz <email@example.com> 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
\ "[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/ |