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

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

On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Halton <johnhalton@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:35PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > > * 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.
> >
> > On further reflection, I'm inclined to agree. The fact that it says
> > "OpenVision *retains* copyright" strongly implies that it is simply
> > talking about maintaining the status quo, not about changing any
> > copyright ownership. If the intention was for copyright to be
> > assigned to OpenVision then clearer wording to this effect would be
> > needed.
> It's the "derivative works [...] whether created by OpenVision or by a
> third party" that muddies the water. This could be rationally
> interpreted as a claim to "retain" copyright in *all* derived works of
> the original, including all derivatives, even those parts created "by
> a third party".

If I'm not entirely mistaken, a "work" is a unit, to which one or more persons 
may have copyright as a whole. There really is no such thing as copyright to 
a part of a work. However, if a portion of a work can be broken out as a new 
work on its own, it is possible that only those authors who had part in 
creating that portion can claim copyright to it.

Magnus Holmgren        holmgren@lysator.liu.se
                       (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)

  "Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for 
   Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: