4 ms·
17 USC Sec. 203 also covers derivative works and the fact that they remain distributable under the original terms (though future derivative works are up in the
by SwellJoe 9y ago
17 USC Sec. 203 also covers derivative works and the fact that they remain distributable under the original terms (though future derivative works are up in the air if your interpretation holds water, which I still don't really buy).
Further, revocation of copyright on works with multiple authors must be signed off on by a majority of copyright holders, per the law you've cited. That's literally impossible with something like Linux (but maybe not with something like Arduino, if it only has a tiny number of authors, I don't know).
If it's so simple and obvious, why has it never happened in 30+ years of GPL software, when billions of dollars are at stake?
"The general American (Anglo-American, I think, as I'm fairly certain the principle is a common law one which is older than the US) of licenses."
Many things in "common law" have been replaced by written legislation and case law. Modern copyright bears no resemblance, and only has only tenuous connections, to common law. Copyright is among the most debated and litigated categories of law in the modern world, with legislation, legal precedent, and even international treaties covering it. If your position is that it is as you say because common law is as you say, that just sounds really shaky. Now, I need to ask you to back up the assertion that "common law" is the law in force on copyright in any developed Western nation, because that seems to be the crux of your interpretation of the law.
I don't know, man. I'm not an expert, by any means, but I'm just not following your reasoning here, at all.
My understanding of the GPL is that it is a one way street for released code. New releases can be under a new license if all of the authors agree to it, but once something is out there under the GPL, it is always under the GPL. Nothing you've said makes me think otherwise because the weight of precedent seems to disagree with you.