[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:00:45 MDT, "Jeff V. Merkey" said:
There's also a more fundamental problem with the GPL language. The GPL stated it
confers "RIGHT TO COPY". This is not the same as "RIGHT TO GRANT
LICENSES TO DISTRIBUTE." Under US copyright law, if you confer to any person
the "right to copy" in a license which states the software is FREE, you have in essense
affected a copyright transfer to each and every person who receives the
code.
Bullshit.
17 USC 106(3) talks about transfer of ownership *of the item*, not of the
copyright itself (see 17 USC 202, which clarifies this). So you can sell a
book - but that isn't transferring the copyright of the book. There isn't any
actual transfer without a document that actually *SAYS* "transfer of copyright" -
see 17 USC 204 (a) (Note that there's whole companies in Utah, with actual
large legal teams, that seem unclear on the concept in 17 USC 204(a), so I'm
not surprised that you're confused on this as well).
I have responded all I am going to on this topic. Further discussion
will not be helpful. The patches are provided
IAW the GPL. Our proprietary application is just like the thousands of
others provided on Linux, and it
does use or incorporate any GPL or Linux code.
I will not respond to any further discussion on this thread. Thanks for
the input. Please feel free to read Linus
statements on kernel.org regarding the statements that applications that
run on Linux and that use published
interfaces are unaffected by the GPL.
Thanks for your input.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |