Quoting Henrik Ingo ([email protected]): > This is an important point, yes. Otoh the GPL is the same license for > everyone that uses it. At least in an ideal world it cannot apply in > one way to your software and another to mine, since it is the same > text.
Yes. However, in any copyright law case, the relevant question is what the _licensor's_ terms (rights and obligations) are, within the context of surrounding law. The judge will look first to the wording of a written licence. If there is still some ambiguity about what licensor intended, the judge might consider surrounding details of what _licensor_ said and did. The judge is not going to ask a third party, FSF, what it thinks, as that is simply not in the picture. Thus my point. > Lacking more legal precedent (on this particular topic) we can > only guess what the real answer is.... There is plenty of legal precedent for what 'derivative work' does and does not mean. In my experience, it is highly useful to read it and learn to think like a judge. Software people seem determined to fixate on irrelevant criteria in this matter. But I'm not going to keep reiterating my point. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
