| |||||||||||||
Oh $DEITYOh $DEITYPosted Feb 16, 2006 19:13 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524)In reply to: Oh $DEITY by k8to Parent article: On the dual-license model 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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,
|
|||||||||||||