Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:15:59PM +0100, Keith Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 22:40 +0200, Lars Luthman wrote:
> > A copyright licence is a licence, not a contract. It can only grant
> > additional rights to the ones you are already given under your
> > copyright
> > law, not remove any of them. In virtually every country the copyright
> > holder can do whatever he or she wants with his or her own work, and
> > releasing it under a licence that grants additional rights to others
> > can
> > never change that.
>
> In most countries (certainly the UK) a non-copyright holder starts from
> a position of zero rights. The only way I can access a copyright item
> is by a licence from the copyright holder that grants me rights. In the
> case of LS/libgig I am being granted two sets of (possibly) incompatible
> rights by two different licences from the same copyright holder.
This is not true. You have fair use rights.
> I am being licenced use of LS under the terms of the GPL V2 + a
> restriction on redistribution as a commercial product. I am also being
> licenced the use of libgig under a pure GPL V2 licence. The problem is
> that the pure GPL V2 libgig "virally infects" LS and the result is a
> (possible) breach of the terms of the GPL V2, and the GPL V2 states that
> if you breach the licence all rights granted under it are withdrawn. So
> at this point I have no licence to use libgig and I am in breach of
> copyright.
Only if you distribute binaries. Compiling, linking, and using the software on
your end is fair use.
-Forest
-- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 19 2007 - 00:15:02 EEST