Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes but the difference is between a license and a sale. GPL is license to 
use copyright material, albeit an unconventional one, rather than a sale 
of copyright material...exercise for the alert reader...if it is copyright 
then what is the term? Since it is a collaborative effort presumably it is 
70yrs from the lifetime of the last surviving author. So does every change 
made to the code by somebody in the future just keep extending the 
copyright term ad infinitum in a way that would have Disney and Jack 
Valenti drooling during congressional testimony if they even thought they 
could get it?




Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
07/23/2002 02:57 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] You can go swimming, but....



On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 05:13  PM, Dean Sanchez wrote:

> I would argue (probably unsuccessfully in today's climate regarding IP) 
> that you shouldn't be able to add additional restrictions upon 
> copyrighted material.  The act of copyrighting implicitly invokes a 
> social contract that limits your ability to place such restrictions. 
> If you want such restrictions, then don't copyright the material. 
> Protect it yourself.
>
>
How might your argument apply to the GPL? The GNU foundation argues that 
while use of a program does not infringe on copyright, the modification 
and distribution of the programs do infringe on the copyright holders 
exclusive rights-- hence the FSF are free to dictate terms-- terms that 
may include what Microsoft calls "viral" licensing.


Jeremy