| |||||||||||||
AVM's argumentsAVM's argumentsPosted Jun 20, 2011 23:28 UTC (Mon) by Hausvib6 (guest, #70606)In reply to: AVM's arguments by coriordan Parent article: FSFE on AVM v. Cybits
Compilation copyright, huh... Isn't the argument is simple to defeat with something like: What if I took several best-selling songs from the last 9 years, create an album then sell it? I can see multiple armies of lawyers from the music industry coming to get my money and perhaps my soul.
(Log in to post comments)
AVM's arguments Posted Jun 20, 2011 23:39 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the thing is that they are not arguing that they have the right to do this, they are arguing that you can't modify what they have compiled without their permission.
to use your argument, if they did create a combined album (with properly licensed songs on it) and then you attempted to tweak it (as opposed to creating your own compiliation from scratch), they could prevent you from doing so.
the flaw in their argument is the 'no additional restrictions' clause of the GPL. they can have that compilation copyright, but if they put more restrictions on it than are on the GPL, they then loose the ability to distribute the GPL work (unless they have some other non-GPL license to the work, which does not exist for the kernel)
|
|||||||||||||