Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 08:18:30PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > I would suggest
> >
> > "You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by
> > T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting
> > binary, under the restrictions in clause
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > thus, anybody can reuse and relicence it in any way one wishes.
>
> No one can relicense anyone else's work, PD or not.
Er.. yes you can.
It doesn't mean much if you don't put original content into your
derived copy, but there's nothing that prevents mu
Raul writes:
> It ["relicensing"] doesn't mean much if you don't put original content
> into your derived copy, but there's nothing that prevents multiple
> licenses.
It doen't mean anything. The original work retains its original license
while whatever you added to create the derivative gets wha
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2. Modified object or executable code must be accompanied by the
> >modified source code and/or documentation clearly stating the
> >modifications. Modified executables must be renamed to not
> >conflict with
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's plenty of examples where a public domain work was relicensed and
> > sold for a lot of money.
>
> And those who paid that money can extract the PD work and distribute copies
> with impunity no matter how the seller "relicensed" it.
Only if they c
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the U.S. Government will *not* take action against a U.S. citizen who
> slaps another copyright on the work, I think the idea is plausible.
They probably won't. That doesn't mean that a third-party copyright
statement will have any validity in court, what
Raul writes:
> Only if they can do the extraction (can identify the changes). This can
> be rather hard if we're talking about a binary which was derived from PD
> information -- you might not even know that part of it was PD.
I am not disputing this, just the notion that on can change the licens
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
> the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
> from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
> any exclusi
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
> the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
> from the preexisting material employ
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quotes Title 17:
> > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
> > the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
> > from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
> > any exclusive right in
Henning Makholm writes:
> They probably won't. That doesn't mean that a third-party copyright
> statement will have any validity in court, whatsoever.
Except perhaps as evidence of fraud.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
You can re-license any work that allows re-licensing. These include all
public-domain works, and any other works whose license terms allow it, such
as works under the BSD and X licenses. You can, for example, put the GPL
on any X-licensed work _in_addition_ to the X license. Your modifications
will
> It says that you can't enlarge the scope, etc. of any copyright
> protection in the prexisting material.
>
> There is no copyright protection in the prexisting material, so I fail
> to see how that paragraph is relevant.
there is no copyright protection; therefore the scope of any existing
copy
Raul writes:
> But there is no copyright on U.S. Government issued materials, nor on
> public domain materials, so this paragraph isn't really relevant.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as disting
14 matches
Mail list logo
