Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: >>> The main author of Plex86 forked his own project (heh) to create the >>> "new" Plex86 effort, and relicensed it under the MIT/X license. He >>> asserted that, as the copyright holder, he has permission to do so. >>> >>> But Plex86 included many contributions of different developers under the >>> LGPL. In order to relicense, he'd need either to have permission from >>> each of the copyright holders of the old Plex86 project, or >>> remove/replace the code for which he doesn't own the copyright. >> >> For what it's worth, there have been a lot of vague mumblings about >> authors of "joint works" being able to license the work without requiring >> permission >> from other authors. > Even if true, it doesn't apply to "derivative works"; it would apply to > cases where two people, together, wrote the work jointly, at one time -- > not to a case where one person edited the preexisting work of another > person. (Of course, that's a really fuzzy line.)
So, looking at the decision of the Gaiman/McFarlane case, that doesn't appear to be the case: despite the sequential nature of comic book production (storyine -> script -> editor -> art -> publication), the characters were regarded as very clear joint works by the court. That's not free software, that's comic books, which is why I didn't mention it before. >> However, I've yet to see confirmation of this from a >> copyright lawyer, and I'm not aware of any major project actually doing >> this. (I suppose it would be against the FSF's interests to confirm this, >> since it >> loosens the GPL's "hold" somewhat.) If anyone has a competent source on >> this as it relates to free software, though, I'd be interested in it. >> > > -- > Make sure your vote will count. > http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
