🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>That depends on whether the license attaches to the program type or
>any individual token thereof.  I assume that the former is the case,
>as the latter does not seem to make any sense.  In any case, your
>claim that, "as the owner of the work, [you] can make another copy
>with a different copyright agreement attached", directly contradicts
>the statement of the GPL, which regulates *all* copying, modification,
>sublicensing, distribution, or transfer of the licensed program.
>Since any derivative code is required to be so licensed, and since we
>have _ex hypothesi_, that your code has been so derived, it appears
>that you are dead wrong.

The simple way to avoid the GPL "virus" problem on your own work is to
apply the GPL to the copy rather than the original, i.e. write a program
and make it proprietary, make a copy of it (as the owner, you have this
right), and slap the GPL on this copy.  Derivatives of the copy must
inherit the GPL, but derivatives of the original can be subject to any
terms you wish.

The actual force of the GPL as a true "license" has never actually been
tested.  I'm not a lawyer, but it looks very much like "shrink-wrap"
licenses, which many people believe are not really enforceable.  The GPL is
probably better viewed as a description of the copyright terms; thus, using
the GPL doesn't remove copyright rights such as the "fair use" doctrine.
And given this, the terms *do* apply to the token, not the type, since
copyright applies to expressions not ideas (although with software, the
line between token and type is fuzzy).

>The ownership is just what is at issue here.  I have argued that the GPL
>assigns the ownership to the FSF, superseding any existing copyrights.
>(Note that I am referring to _de facto_ ownership, as determined by the
>exclusive right to control the aforementioned activities, and not any
>official version thereof.  I am not interested in any possibility of _de
>jure_ ownership, which does not allow you to dispose of the goods as you
>see fit.)

I think this is the crux of the confusion.

If the FSF were the owner of all GPLed programs, then it could *change* the
terms of the license of any of these programs.  But it can't.  Unless he
has assigned the rights to another party, the original author is still the
only one who can set the licensing terms.  The fact that he happens to set
the same terms as the FSF does doesn't mean that the FSF takes control of
it.  As someone else pointed out, if the FSF comes out with a GPL version
3, it doesn't affect programs that are licensed using GPL v2.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar