| |||||||||||||
Oh $DEITYOh $DEITYPosted Feb 16, 2006 10:52 UTC (Thu) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)In reply to: Oh $DEITY by hummassa Parent article: On the dual-license model
Are we free to understand this article is authoritative legal advice?
Or, less snarkily, why do you believe you can give an authoritative legal opinion on the license text when others who are legal experts are not in agreement with you?
It is easy to accept that the matter is not made entirely clear by the license text. It is very difficult to accept your conclusion.
(Log in to post comments)
As authoritative as possible, considering: Posted Feb 16, 2006 11:33 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] IANAL, but I have worked for two years as a paralegal in a DA's office, Ihave legal training, and I researched Brasilian copyright law (and 17USC) for use in criminal prosecution of copyright infringers. The only _real_ authoritative answer will come from a superior court in your jurisdiction. Maybe I should have disclaimed all that -- for the 100th time? Ok. Now it's done.
Oh $DEITY Posted Feb 16, 2006 19:13 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] He's basically rigth, even though he words it provocatively.The basic point is: No license has the power to define what "derivative work" mean in the context of copyrigth law. Only a judge can do that. And if a judge says that X is not, according to copyrigth-law, a derivative of Y, then there is absolutely nothing the author of Y can do to affect X. The license for Y is simply irrelevant in this case.
Oh $DEITY Posted Feb 23, 2006 13:17 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Which is why the GPL v3 addresses this directly ...
v2 was not written by a lawyer. I don't know whether v3 was, but if it wasn't it had a lot of legal involvement in its drafting.
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||