Hello,
Suppose that I take a source file under the GPL and modify it to turn
it into a Ruby extension. The original file would have a notice like:
/* file.c
···
-
- Copyright © 2000 Joe Hacker
-
- This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
- it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
…
*/
When I make a Ruby extension based on this code, it would stay under the
GPL. But who has the copyright for the new version? Is it the orignal
developer (“Joe Hacker”) or is it the guy who ported it to Ruby (me)?
Should I put:
file.rb
Copyright © 2000 Joe Hacker
…
or
file.rb
Copyright © 2003 Daniel Carrera
Thanks for the help.
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
Hi!
Daniel Carrera wrote:
When I make a Ruby extension based on this code, it would stay under the
GPL. But who has the copyright for the new version? Is it the orignal
developer (“Joe Hacker”) or is it the guy who ported it to Ruby (me)?
Well… I’d say: the moment you change the original source code, you
“derive work from” it in terms of the GPL. Therefor, you should concider
this (derived) work as yours and put your name in the notice. It would
definitely be nice if you included information on what original work
your file is based, but the only obligation you have ist to publish
your file.rb under the terms of the GPL as well.
See ya
Phil
···
–
So there actually is a framerate to modnight commander on a Cyrix-133+
Thanks for the help. This makes a lot more sense now.
···
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
He owns the copyright of the modifications, but the copyright of the
original source code remains: he should write both. Consider Ruby’s
array.c:
Copyright (C) 1993-2002 Yukihiro Matsumoto
Copyright (C) 2000 Network Applied Communication Laboratory, Inc.
Copyright (C) 2000 Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan
In case of license violation, all the copyright holders can sue, not
only the last one.
Reductio ab absurdum, he cannot consider the derived work as his,
because if it were he would be the only copyright holder, and would be
entitled to distribute it under whatever license he chose, including one
different from the GPL.
He is must only publish file.rb under the GPL iff we redistributes it.
It’s OK if he doesn’t redistribute it.
···
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 01:28:20PM +0900, Philipp Taprogge wrote:
Hi!
Daniel Carrera wrote:
When I make a Ruby extension based on this code, it would stay under the
GPL. But who has the copyright for the new version? Is it the orignal
developer (“Joe Hacker”) or is it the guy who ported it to Ruby (me)?
Well… I’d say: the moment you change the original source code, you
“derive work from” it in terms of the GPL. Therefor, you should concider
this (derived) work as yours and put your name in the notice. It would
definitely be nice if you included information on what original work
your file is based, but the only obligation you have ist to publish
your file.rb under the terms of the GPL as well.
–
_ _
__ __ | | ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
'_ \ / | __/ __| '_ _ \ / ` | ’ \
) | (| | |__ \ | | | | | (| | | | |
.__/ _,|_|/| || ||_,|| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
…you could spend all day customizing the title bar. Believe me. I
speak from experience.
– Matt Welsh