Hi
On Friday 14 June 2002 04:39, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:36:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2002, at 05:58 , Branden Robinson
wrote:
> > > If you
> > >incorporate that work into a GPLed one, the endorsement
> > > terms would be "masked off", but would re-assert
> > > themselves once the independently-copyrighted were were
> > > extracted from its GPLed container.
> >
> > 1) Take a document A under the proposed license.
> > 2) Convert it to the GPL, by adding section B.
> > 3) Remove section B. The GPL allows this.
> >
> > Result: Document A, under the GPL. No endorsement clause.
> >
> > I believe that any license attempting to stop (3), above,
> > would be in contradiction to the GPL's no additional
> > restrictions clause.
>
> As I just told Glenn Maynard, I think I refuted this argument
> in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> The GPL convertibility only applies if the DFCLed work is
> distributed as part of a separate GPLed work. Once extracted
> from its GPLed housing, the endorsements clause reasserts
> itself because the GPL cannot *remove* the copyright or the
> license on another work.
IANAL, so I am not entirely sure, but...
In step 2, the guy who adds section B gains a copyright on the
_entire_ text, independently of its original copyright, not just
on section B.
So, when you remove section B again, you are free to choose,
whether you regard it as the original DFCLed work or a derivate
work of the GPLed big one.
cu,
Thomas
}:o{#
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
