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 if you breach the licence all rights granted under it are withdrawn.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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
