🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.143028.19112@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <C0Jtvr.Bsr@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>Note that "Paragraph 5", as distinct from "paragraph 5", refers to the
>corresponding item of the Terms and Conditions, rather than the
>Preamble.

[...]

>________________________________
>
>	5.  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer
>	the Program except as expressly provided under this General
>	Public License.   .....
>
>________________________________

This statement expresses one of several "terms and conditions 
for copying, distribution and modification" set forth by the 
"licensor" (aka "owner", or "copyright holder")  which describe 
and limit the rights of licensees.  It does not describe or limit 
the rights of the licensor.

Moreover, it is made in the name of the "copyright holder"/owner
by virtue of the fact that said individual "owns" the code;
if this were not so, the licensor would have no right or
power to set "terms and conditions" in the first place.

>MZ:
>>>The
>>>question is precisely, to what extent the GPL attempts to supersede the
>>>legal ownership rights attached to the copyright; I shall not presume to
>>>judge the extent of its success in this attempt.
>
>BJ:
>>The answer, precisely, is "none".
>
>Nonsense.  Insofar as, under Paragraph 3 of the selfsame GPL, "the
>Program" clearly covers the derived works, which may be copyrighted in
>their author's mame, the answer is "conclusively and irrevocably".
>Please read the text more carefully next time.

Whether or not a "derived work" is copyrighted in the name of 
the original author, or jointly in the names of each individual
who contributes a snippet, is a matter separate from the question
of licensing.  The GPL requires only that derived works be 
licensed under the same terms as the original.  It does not
require that any author surrender ownership in the portion of
the work that he or she contributes.  

For example, I can modify emacs, and attach a copyright notice 
to the source code snippet that is my contribution, provided 
that I license my modified emacs under the GPL if I choose to
distribute copies to others.  Furthermore, I can distribute 
the aggregate with an overall copyright notice that says:

    Bill's Modified Emacs
    (c)  Free Software Foundation  19xx
    Portions (c)  Bill Johnston  19yy

etc.

The inclusion of the word "Portions" in the above would only
reflect modesty about the extent of my contribution.  I could 
say the same about the "portion" copyrighted by FSF.

My right as copyright holder to separately release my original
code under my own terms is unaffected by the GPL.  

>BJ:
>>To paraphrase two earlier bits from Mr. Zeleny's contribution
>>to this discussion:
>>
>> 1)  Now would be a good time for Mr. Zeleny to admit his error.
>>
>> 2)  Are you going to be a man or a mouse about it, Mr. Zeleny?
>>
>>Please note that I am not accusing you Mr. Zeleny of "prevaricating" 
>>in repeatedly making false statements about the GPL;  I merely
>>point out his error.  Readers can draw their own conclusions.
>
>It looks like your strategy backfired once again.  The error is yours;
>will you admit it?  Note that this time I am not accusing you of lying,
>but assuming that you are merely being careless.

My only error was in guessing what you meant by "Paragraph 5",
which has more to do with your failure to be explicit - despite
repeated invitations from others to do so - than it does with
carelessness on my part.

The remainder of my argument in <<C0Jtvr.Bsr@news.udel.edu> offered
sufficient proof -- which you did not attempt to refute except by 
irrelevant counter-example -- that the application of the the GPL to 
one's work does not result in transfer of ownership of said work 
to the Free Software Foundation.  Period.

Now you have yet another sufficient demonstration of your error. 
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949