From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c872c1d538a5b255 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-16 21:07:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Copyright, Licensing etc. Date: 16 Mar 2002 21:07:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0203162107.15fd54f5@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1016341635 13771 127.0.0.1 (17 Mar 2002 05:07:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Mar 2002 05:07:15 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21354 Date: 2002-03-17T05:07:15+00:00 List-Id: sk wrote in message news:... > However, I want to ensure 3 things : > > 1) That I do not "offend" the original author The issue is not "offending" the original author (though of course it is a courtesy to ask), but rather to ensure that you have a valid license. The fact that a file has a GPL header on it has no legal significance. Only the copyright holder has the power to license, and the mere fact that there is some wording on a file does not ensure that this is the case (imagine for example if someone posted Microsoft proprietary code, adding a GPL header, this would NOT mean that this code was licensed under the GPL). > 2) That I do not infringe upon the original copyright and > licensing. Well of course that is a legal issue, and I cannot offer any legal advice here, especially since I have not seen what you have done, but certainly a good step is to make sure that you do have definitive knowledge of who holds the copyright and what license they provide. > 3) That I properly cover any loop-holes and keep the > derivation within the same GPL license. Again, that is a legal issue. The GPL is a legal contract, and you have to make sure you adhere to all its conditions. > However, for items 2) and 3) does the following both > fully honor the original work and stop my derivation > from escaping the GPL ? What you put in the header is irrelevant, it has no legal significance. > Do I in fact have any copyrights to the derivation ? Probably, assuming the original was licensed under the GPL, the result is a permissible deriviative work in which you share a copyright interest. > I have read the original license, but I am having trouble > distinguishing between the domain of the original > material and the domain of my translation. Clearly only an attorney can offer a professional opinion here, and only a court can finally adjudicate, but you may find useful information in the GPL FAQ if you have not already read it.