License
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: how to enlarger Java heap size?
Next: JTable: how to change properties of a component located in a cell
From: markspace on 19 Sep 2009 14:47 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > > Where do you read that? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work> > > Such a claim would be in violation of both GPL and CDDL. They > are based on that you retain copyright of your code, but that I read through the link provided and didn't see anything there that said that. I know how the GPL is typically interpreted but I wouldn't bet on it in a court. I think your interpretation is only applied if you are the grantor, it doesn't affect the resulting work, which is not owned by you. > your license for their code is only valid if you grant other > certain rights.
From: John B. Matthews on 19 Sep 2009 14:58 In article <4ab51f99$0$280$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > If GPL is used, then any code "linked" to that code > must be under GPL or it is violating the license. That is correct, but the example cited by the OP includes a specific exception: 'Sun designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided by Sun in the License file that accompanied this code.' The exception is highlighted in yellow here: <https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html> This would affect the OP's rights and obligations regarding redistribution. A similar exception is provided for runtime library elements that are linked by various gcc compilers. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 15:07 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:47:41 -0700, markspace <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> Where do you read that? > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work> > >> Such a claim would be in violation of both GPL and CDDL. They >> are based on that you retain copyright of your code, but that > > I read through the link provided and didn't see anything there that said > that. The question isn't whether a discussion of "derivative work" would say something specifical about GPL/CDDL. How could it? It's a general discussion, independent of GPL/CDDL. The question is about whether "derivative work" specifically transfers copyright ownership of the "derivative work" to the copyright holder of the original work (it doesn't, as to me the article you referenced makes clear), and whether the GPL/CDDL transfer ownership to the author of the original work (they don't, nor is it clear they could even if language along those lines were included). > I know how the GPL is typically interpreted but I wouldn't bet on it in > a court. I think your interpretation is only applied if you are the > grantor, it doesn't affect the resulting work, which is not owned by you. You seem to be under the impression that the copyright of a "derivative work" is owned by the copyright holder of the original work. But the very link you offer as evidence says exactly the opposite. Quoting solely from the quote of the US copyright law (noting, of course, that there is also the issue of how copyright is applied globally): A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. In other words, for something to be a "derivative work" it must also be "an original work of authorship". Further: Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship... In other words, copyright protection is granted to "original works of authorship", which "derivative works" necessarily are. That is, a "derivative work" is an "original work of authorship", and copyright protection is granted to the "original work of authorship", not original works that precede the "original work of authorship". The new work gets a new copyright. The quoted "Circular 14" even goes on to explain how a work must qualify as a "derivative work" and thus be granted copyright protection: typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work"... In other words, a "derivative work" may be eligible for copyright protection so long as it differs from the original work sufficiently. The Wikipedia article then goes on in great length to elaborate on this. But the short version is that a "derivative work" may or may not be eligible for copyright protection, depending on how much "new work" is added (or rather, whether enough new material exists for it to qualify as a "new work"). Should the "derivative work" qualify as a "new work", it's copyrightable by the person who created the "derivative work"; if not, no copyright protection applies at all, and thus it wouldn't make sense to claim that the copyright was owned by the author of the original work (they still retain copyright ownership of their own work, of course, but there's no copyrightable material in the "derivative work" for copyright to apply to). Another way to look at it is to rephrase what Arne wrote: the GPL and CDDL both require the author of the original work to grant license to use that author's modifications of the original work. But the author can't possible grant license if he is not the copyright holder. If we interpret the GPL and CDDL according to your conditions, then they contain a paradox: they require the author of modifications to grant a license that, according to the terms of the GPL and CDDL (by your conditions), the author doesn't have the right to grant. The contradiction is counter-proof to your assertion. Pete
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 15:10 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:58:53 -0700, John B. Matthews <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > [...] > The exception is highlighted in yellow here: > > <https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html> > > This would affect the OP's rights and obligations regarding > redistribution. I don't think so. That exception provides only for the situation where the original library is _linked_, without modification. Modifying the library code itself excludes that exception, leaving the rest of the license to apply in whole. Pete
From: Mike Schilling on 19 Sep 2009 15:18
John Leonard wrote: ? > > My background includes microcomputer app development going back to > the > 80's. I have become accustomed to having access to freely usable > sample code from manufacturers and the like to get things going when > developing for a given platform. Has that changed? It has, and I can't tell you why. Sun is iun the same position as those manufacturers: they all want you to use their products, and giving you some sample code as a starting point encourages that. Why they'd make you jump through legal hoops to do so escapes me. |