Re: [tlug] Apple owns CUPS

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:59:36 +0900
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

 > > There are two other theories I know of.  The first is that the
 > > copyright holder of a work derived from a GPLed work is bound by his
 > > obligations under the GPL.  If upstream intends the GPL to be a
 > > permanent gift, then arguably "same terms" implies that the implicit
 > > perpetual term of the upstream license must carry over to downstream.
 > > That would mean that derivative works have at least as long a term as
 > > the original work.

 > That does not hold under any copyright law i'm familiar with.
 > A copyright holder may change the license of the work he still
 > owns to any conditions he pleases to.

In the case of U.S. law, copyright law is not involved here; this is
purely a matter of property.  If you use property under license, you
are bound by the terms of the license.  It doesn't matter if you mix
it with your own property, that doesn't change the terms of the
license.

BTW, note that you're contradicting your original statement, which is
that the copyright holder can't withdraw the GPL.  I don't know what
conclusion to draw from that, except that you're in a certain amount
of difficulty. :-)

 > > The second is that some copyright holders like the FSF are bound by
 > > covenants of incorporation.

 > Nobody signed such a covenant nor is there any implicit agreement
 > to it within GPLv2. So that doesn't hold either.

Of course it does; the covenant applies to those works distributed by
the FSF, because the founder of the FSF did sign such a covenant, and
the covenant binds the FSF (and only the FSF).