On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:27:05AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >"OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source > >Code, > >whether created by OpenVision or by a third party" seems like it > >tries to > >claim copyright in parts of derived works that they didn't create. > > This smells bogus, but I believe it's accurate. The original author > and the author of the derivative probably *both* have copyrights > covering the new work. They do not try to deny a derivative's author > copyright. This seems a description of law, hence null.
You're saying that because it doesn't say "retains _exclusive_ copyright", it doesn't preclude others from claiming copyright over other (non OpenVision) portions of the work? Could be, I guess. Which would make it simply a poorly-worded reimplementation of copyright law. I still don't think the "you are deemed to have accepted the terms of this licence by the act of *copying*" clause is OK. I guess, though, in a way it's another wording of the GPL's "you can't legally get a copy except by the permissions we've granted here, so we'll take it as read you accept this licence" clause. Could we get a clarification from the copyright holder on these issues? Preferably with slightly better wording, so it doesn't make it look like they're trying to trick people into signing over their first-born? - Matt
