discuss: Re: LDP License loophole: (was LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal)
Subject:
Re: LDP License loophole: (was LDP Licence: a post-2.0 modest proposal)
From:
David Lawyer ####@####.####
Date:
27 Dec 2003 03:29:22 -0000
Message-Id: <20031227032838.GA4338@lafn.org>
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 01:03:26AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting David Lawyer ####@####.####
>
> > True, but what does this have to do with the loophole? The loophole can
> > be done since the LDPL allows a modifier to rewrite the license.
>
> If you think you may lawfully relicense anyone else's creative work,
> then you have fundamentally misunderstood copyright law. Please consult
> the national copyright statute in your country. If you're in the USA,
> I believe it's 17 USC 106 and 17 USC 501(a).
>
> Note that the rights discussed in 17 USC 106 through 121 are exclusive
> to the copyright owner by statute. Even if LDPL v2.0 purported to allow
> modification of licence terms (which I don't think a fair reading
> supports), it obviously could not trump US Federal or other national
> copyright law.
What you seem to fail to understand is that the rights given exclusively
to the copyright owner can be given away to others via a license. For
example, a copyright owner is given by law the exclusive right to make
copies, but a license can give that right away to the world. That's why
anyone can make copies of LDP documents. The copyright owner has
relinquished his/her exclusive right. Ditto for the right to make
derivative works and relicense them. Actually, the copyright law I
looked at says nothing about licenses, which are often considered to be
contracts. GPL considers itself to be a contract.
David Lawyer
