brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/18/90)
You may distribute exact and complete copies of this article. In article <1990Dec17.200012.28085@cs.UAlberta.CA> beck@cs.UAlberta.CA (Bob Beck) writes: > The whole point of "copyleft" is that you are > **NOT** allowed to restrict the free distribution of the code for the > package in question. [ ... ] > The author can't "take back" That's simply not true. I've permanently waived some of my exclusive copyright on this article. People can (e.g.) print out millions of copies and give them to friends. I can't take away this right.% But it's ridiculous to believe that I can no longer sell copies of this article, or change it and sell the new copies. I'm the one giving away rights here, and I haven't restricted myself by giving you something. The same comments apply to the GPL. The point of copyleft is not to restrict the author's rights; it's to limit his restrictions on other people's rights. ---Dan %This isn't strictly true. Copyright law says that an author can revoke copyright limitations any time between 35 and 40 years later. And state law may reduce this period to just 7 years.
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/22/90)
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