Re: GPL and "free" software

[owinebar@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Lynn Winebarger)]

In article <NllV2.96$jw4.11389@burlma1-snr2>,
Barry Margolin  <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <7g2v6u$a3p$1@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
>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
>
>I don't think so.  When C gets the software from B, he also gets the
>license that B specifies, and he's bound by that license.  If B was
>required to distribute the code under the GPL, but didn't, he violated his
>license, and wasn't authorized to distribute the software in the first
>place.  But he isn't automatically assumed to have distributed the source
>with a proper license.

   That's something a judge would decide, I think.  You should take a
look at Chapter 5 of Title 17 (the Copyright act).  The penalties
against an infringer are _very_ harsh.  Not only is the original
copyright holder owed any losses he incurred from the infringers use (in
the case of a GPL author, probably very little), he is also owed all
profits from the infringing activity (which could be a lot).  And that's
the tip of the iceberg.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
>The GPL has a clause that says that if B's license is terminated because he
>violates the GPL's terms, third parties who have received copies under the
>GPL do not lose their license.  But I don't think that applies to this
>case, since C didn't receive their copy under the GPL.  In other words, it
>says that if C was given the right to make copies, they don't lose them
>because B has lost them; but if C was never given the right to make copies
>(because B distributed under his own, more restrictive license) they don't
>suddenly get them when B's license is terminated.

    But B has no right to unilaterally license derivative works.  In
fact, I checked out the law: (title 17)
-----------------

    - 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative
works

    (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102
includes compilations and
    derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting
material in which copyright
    subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such
material has been used
    unlawfully. 

    (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed
    by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting
material employed in the
    work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting
material. The copyright in such
    work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or
    subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material. 
---------------------------------------------

   The way I read part (a), any modifications to the GPL'ed software
that aren't independent of the GPL'ed software, are either distributed
under the GPL (as an authorized use of the right to derivative works) or
are used unlawfully and thus _do_not_have_copyright_protection.

   I could be wrong, of course, cause the wording is pretty strange.
I'm thinking a demonstrative example of how this rule would apply is if
you published a book where the first half was a revised (derivative)
version of someone else's work (unauthorized), and the second half was
totally original.  It seems to me that the author would not have
copyright protection on the first half, though he would on the second.

   So it reads to me as though, for unlawfully made derivative works,
the original copyright holder retains all the existent copyrights on the
derivative work (since the infringer is denied such rights by part (a),
and no one else can claim rights to derivative works).

Lynn