Paul Nathan Puri wrote: > However, the author of the GPLed work or the author of the GPL have the > right to change the meaning of 'derivative' to suit their own purposes.
Where does the author get this right? If my work is not a derivative of the GPL'd work, under copyright law, then how can the terms of the GPL (including its definition of 'derivative') possibly affect me? Remember, I have not signed any contract with the author. > I think it would be entirely appropriate for the GPL to have an extensive > definitions section. Otherwise, individual coders can make their own > definitions. This is a practical matter, and I am not sure if it is a good idea. The NPL tried this, and in my opinion it's become an unreadable mess because of it. The lawyers may like it, but the programmers don't :) (Certainly I would have packaged Mozilla for Debian as soon as it came out, if I had been able to figure out my responsibilities under the NPL. Now it's an orphaned package.) > The holder of the copy of a GPLed app has a contract with the author to do > or not to do certain things according the the license. Ah, I think this claim could use some explanation. It's the key point for the first paragraph above. At what point do I become bound to this contract? I don't think that I do, at all, until I try to do something with the GPLed app that copyright law does not allow me to. > The holder of the copyright in the copy owns the right to revoke the > license, change the license, Hmm, then what use is the license? If the copyright holder can change it at will (you do mean for _existing_ copies?), then the license is meaningless, and no software is free. Richard Braakman
