On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:30:21 PST, David Schwartz said:
> You already have the right to produce derivative works.
No. At least in the US, 17 USC 106 says producing a derivative right is reserved to the
copyright holder, except for the cases enumerated in 17 USC 107-121.
So if you're producing a derivative work without having gotten the rights
to do so, you're screwed in the legal sense.
Clause 2 of the GPL gives you the right to produce derivative works *IF*
you accept the conditions. Having accepted that clause, you're bound by
it - that's what makes the GPL work.
Please enumerate what *OTHER* way you are getting the right to produce a
derivative work, rather than via the GPL clause 2. (Note that this *could*
happen, if for instance code is dual-licensed and you are getting the right
via the other license).
> You already
> have the right to distribute the original work. You already have the
> right to distribute the modifications. Your recipient already has the
> right to use and possess the original. There is no additional right
> to the original work for this section to give you. The right it seeks
> to give you is the simple sum of rights you already have.
Note again that two of these rights (distribute the original, distribute
the modifications) are *NOT* ones you inherently have - you are getting them
*WITH RESTRICTIONS* on what you can and can't do (see clause 2 again).
> "Distributing derived works" is not a specific right under any
> copyright law I know of. It's the sum of other rights. You need some
It's the sum of several rights, one of which is "creating a derived work".
If you can't legally create a derived work, you can't legally distribute same.
-- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:44 EST