OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product

[Bob Kline]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Chris Watson wrote:

> > It makes absolutely no difference what clause 2 of the GPL says.
> > Anyone can craft a license which has unlimited amounts of nonsense in
> > it.  That doesn't change the _fact_ that making a de minimis alteration
> > to a work in the public domain will _not_ entitle you to a _legitimate_
> > copyright in the derived work.
> 
> While I agree I think the GPL is full of idiocy. The fact remains it
> DOES matter the GPL says UNTIL a court of law says otherwise.
> Regardless if its legal to do it or not, if someone does it it's
> going to stand till a court throws it out.

No.  The courts have already said otherwise.  Emphatically.  Repeatedly.  
Eloquently.  If the GPL says that you are entitled to a legitimate
copyright in a derivation which consists of the alteration of a single
letter of a work in the public domain then it is wrong.

Copyright claimants may well argue, and many do, that the changes they
have made to specific works are substantial enough to support a
legitimate copyright in the derived work.  The bulk of the arguments are
settled in the U.S. Copyright Office (for U.S. claims).  In some cases a
court of law will make a determination as to whether the changes are
sufficiently substantial to support the copyright in the derived work.
Such a claim cannot be made for the alteration of a single letter.

If you're still unconvinced, you can believe anything you want to, but
I'm not going to waste any more time or bandwidth trying to explain it
to you.

-- 
Bob Kline
mailto:bkline at rksystems.com
http://www.rksystems.com