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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/04/26
Message-ID: <7g36eu$gd1$1@52-a-usw.rb1.blv.nwnexus.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471293551
References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net>
 <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu> <7g2l0f$58g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
Organization: Institute of Lawsonomy
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>   No, C _is_ free to do so.  The GPL is granted to everyone - it's a
>license on the copyright, not a particular copy.  That is C has, in
>fact, been granted a license by A, regardless of what B told them, or
>intends.  At least, it has been granted a license to the original work,
>and copyrights apply to derivative works as well (not necessarily the
>bare modifications, but the derivative work itself, after modification).

Close, but not quite correct.  To distribute a derivative work, you need
permission of both the original copyright owner and the owner of the
copyright on the modifications.  When someone makes a derivative work by
combining works licensed under incompatible terms, what results is a work
that is not distributable at all.

--Tim Smith