| |||||||||||||
#3 is a variant of #1, and still fails#3 is a variant of #1, and still failsPosted Jun 20, 2011 17:47 UTC (Mon) by david.a.wheeler (guest, #72896)In reply to: AVM's arguments by coriordan Parent article: FSFE on AVM v. Cybits
You can claim a "compilation copyright", but since the claimant does NOT have copyright of all the pieces, they still need to obey the rules of the pieces. This same would be true of Microsoft Office; if you build macros on top of Office, and want to distribute a whole system including your macros and Office, you don't get to make arbitrary copies of Microsoft Office; you have to obey the license of Office. GPLv2 actually anticipates the use of compilation copyright, and makes this perfectly clear: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." I'm guessing this lawsuit will be easily dumped, in Linux' favor. These legal claims sound like nonsense to me. Nobody in the proprietary software world will want this claim to work, since it would mean that proprietary software could be copied indefinitely without paying anyone.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||