Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Sonny! Uncle Hasler Has spoken!!! 

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> Richard writes:
> > If they use my code, then yes.
> 
> No, you do not want to restrict the software of others, nor does the GPL
> attempt to do so (such an attempt would be doomed to failure anyway).  You
> want to restrict derivatives of your software: combinations of your
> software and that of someone else.  

Yeah, "combinations of your software and that of someone else" form
deriviate (hello ueber GNUtian ams) works under unwritten copyleft
statute inacted in the GNU Republic by Mr. President RMS and fully
explained by GNU Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Eben 
"Anarchism Triumphant" and "dot Communist Manifesto" Moglen.

"Opinion on Denationalization of Terminology" 
http://gplv3.fsf.org/denationalization-dd2.html

------ 
Works Based On Other Works 

Although the definition of “work based on the Program” made use of a legal 
term of art, “derivative work,” peculiar to US copyright law, we did not 
believe that this presented difficulties as significant as those associated 
with the use of the term “distribution.” After all, differently-labeled 
concepts corresponding to the derivative work are recognized in all 
copyright law systems. That these counterpart concepts might differ to some 
degree in scope and breadth from the US derivative work was simply a 
consequence of varying national treatment of the right of altering a 
copyrighted work. 

Ironically, the criticism we have received regarding the use of US-specific 
legal terminology in the “work based on the Program” definition has come 
not primarily from readers outside the US, but from those within it, and 
particularly from members of the technology licensing bar. They have argued 
that the definition of “work based on the Program” effectively misstates 
what a derivative work is under US law, and they have contended that it 
attempts, by indirect means, to extend the scope of copyleft in ways they 
consider undesirable. They have also asserted that it confounds the con- 
cepts of derivative and collective works, two terms of art that they assume, 
questionably, to be neatly disjoint under US law. 

We do not agree with these views, and we were long puzzled by the 
energy with which they were expressed, given the existence of many other, 
more difficult legal issues implicated by the GPL. Nevertheless, we realized 
that here, too, we can eliminate usage of local copyright terminology to good 
effect. Discussion of GPLv3 will be improved by the avoidance of parochial 
debates over the construction of terms in one imperfectly-drafted copyright 
statute. Interpretation of the license in all countries will be made easier 
by replacement of those terms with neutral terminology rooted in description 
of behavior. 


Draft 2 therefore takes the task of internationalizing the license further 
by removing references to derivative works and by providing a more globally 
useful definition of a work “based on” another work. We return to the basic 
principles of users’ freedom and the common elements of copyright law. 
Copyright holders of works of software have the exclusive right to form new 
works by modification of the original, a right that may be expressed in 
various ways in different legal systems. The GPL operates to grant this 
right to successive generations of users, particularly through the copyleft 
conditions set forth in section 5 of GPLv3, which applies to the conveying 
of works based on the Program. In section 0 we simply define a work based 
on another work to mean “any modified version for which permission is 
necessary under applicable copyright law,” without further qualifying the 
nature of that permission, though we make clear that modification includes 
the addition of material.1 1 We have also removed the paragraph in section 
5 that makes reference to “derivative or collective works based on the 
Program. 
------- 

Very good. 

regards, 
alexander.