Re: [tlug] Apple owns CUPS

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

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.
 
> 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.

> N.B. All of the above may apply only in U.S. law, I don't know how it
> would work in Europe.  Of course IANAL and TINLA.

See my other mail.

			Attila Kinali
-- 
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
                         -- Deed of Morred