🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Fvh91nz3@cs.psu.edu> ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) writes:
> This would imply to me that any modifications made to Ghostscript by anyone
> could be claimed by Peter as his own as he is the copyright owner.

No. If he has not permitted such modifications, he can sue for damages,
but he doesn't gain control over anyone else's work (except perhaps to
stop it from continuing). If he has permitted them, then he can't
control them any further.

> Even if I found all of the statutes that govern federal copyright law to
> determine exactly what rights are granted a copyright holder I am sure the
> legalease would be overwhelming and I would still need to consult an
> attorney for a translation into English.

Why does everyone have such a negative opinion of the law? It's actually
quite readable. Haul yourself over to a law library, pick up a USCA, and
start reading. Btw, it's the regulations, not the statutes, that matter.

> Perhaps someone in the know (i.e. an attorney) could pontificate on the
> implications of copy{right,left} and the GPL?  Or are there already such
> opinions archived somewhere?

Every such opinion I've seen has considered the GPL both unenforceable
and dangerous.

---Dan