On torsdagen den 24 januari 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > John Halton <email@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org (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
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.