Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!in1.uu.net!165.87.194.248!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net!not-for-mail From: mouth@ibm.net (Mouth of the South) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: GPL Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:18:35 -0500 Lines: 38 Message-ID: <LJn9y0gTzz1L091yn@ibm.net> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <32ED1866.34F02393@indiana.edu> <5cl66d$l52@web.nmti.com> <5cmiuu$iud@garuda.synet.net> <5cokgi$alm@web.nmti.com> <L3U8y0gTz/TM091yn@ibm.net> <32F167BB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <0rnuc5.3e1.ln@zen> <5cvodo$hme@omega.gmd.de> <m23evgchq9.fsf@maxwell.sfhs.floyd.k12.ky.us> <5d2jpo$bb1@omega.gmd.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip129-37-195-144.nc.us.ibm.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:156509 comp.os.linux.networking:67455 comp.os.linux.advocacy:82624 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2302 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:52028 comp.os.os2.advocacy:266015 In article <5d2jpo$bb1@omega.gmd.de>, Holger Veit <veit@gmd.de> wrote: >a trial in court to check the validity of GPL. BTW: in Germany, there does >not exist such a legal construct of a "software license" (you can buy or >lease software, but not "license" it - this is a typical American legal >thing), so general, international copyright rules apply here And international copyright law is much the same from one developed country to another, including the US. >approximately say: this company has used non-patentable algorithms from >public sources, and modified them, which is their own intellectual property, Code covered by GPL is neither public domain nor "public sources." It is COPYRIGHTED and ownership belongs to the copyright holder who copyrighted it under local copyright law, which is turn is recognized by the copyright laws of other countries. Under the terms of the GPL, the holder of the copyright authorizes or "licenses" others to use the software, but only if they are agreeable to the terms of the "license." If they do not agree, or if local law does not permit them to agree, the right to copy and create derivative works which of course can only belong to the original copyright holder, unless otherwise agreed in writing, remains in full force and is in no way diminished. So whether German law permits software "licenses" or not, no company in Germany can create derivative works from copyrighted code, which in our case happens to be "recopyable" under terms of the GPL, and then assert that the derivative work has become their "intellectual property" by virtue of the changes they made. That is the very core of copyright of copyright law. In fact that's why it's called "copyright," because it simply means who has the "right to copy." If it was as you suggest where anyone could make and resell derivative works without permission of the original copyright holder, then copyright protection would be utterly useless. We can be confident that the German publishing industry and legal establishment would never tolerate such a state of affairs.