[darcs-users] Re: how to redistribute darcs+Eclipse

[Ketil Malde]

Jamie Webb <j at jmawebb.cjb.net> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:23:52PM +0200, Ketil Malde wrote:
>> 
>> One question: if a patch (ie. a modification to an existing work) is
>> indeed a derived work, does that mean I cannot fork GPL projects
>> without the blessing of the maintainer?  I.e:
>> 
>> The GPL, of course, states that I may distribute modified works as
>> long as I provide the modifications under the GPL.  But, what if the
>> original author -- who by assumption holds part of the copyright --
>> refuses to agree to GPL-license my patch?
>
> The maintainer has already given you permission to make and distribute
> patches under the GPL. See section 2.

"provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
  [..]
    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License."

Any copyright holder may refuse to licence a particular derived work
with a particular license.  The consequence (for GPL'ed) programs is
that the derived work may not be distributed.

So A writes and publishes a GPL work.  B modifies it, and wants to
distribute the modifications under GPL.  As a copyright holder, A
refuses to accept the GPL for the changes.  Consequence: B's
modifications may not be distributed at all.

If B's changes are copyrighted in part by A, there may also be
consequences for B's ability to make non-GPL modifications of the
software for use (but obviously not distribution) -- to the extent
copyright law regulates this, that is.

(This is all quite pedantic, and clearly in violation of the spirit of
the GPL, of course.  Probably it is also plain wrong :-)

-k
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants