[OT] Source of enforcement capability for the license

[Andy Green]

Rudolf Kastl wrote:

> Actually the nvidia kernel module is not a derivate of the kernel
> because its a ported driver. The gpl also gives every user rights and
> dutys on the software.

Linus has said the same thing when discussing nVidia.

> i as a user can demand the source code fo a gpl derivate just fine
> without beeing an upstream author/developer. Seems like some of you
> confuse that with license changes :).

Confusion is rife alright... you can demand what you like, but the power
to enforce your demand in the GPL is coming through copyright law, and
those powers in law are granted only to the guy that holds copyright on
the work.

To bring such a complaint before the court you have to have standing in
the eyes of copyright law and that means to hold copyright on the work.
 The GPL is a license from the copyright holder to allow you to copy
under certain constraints, not an assignment of copyright or an
agreement giving you or anyone distributed to power of attorney over the
rights of the copyright holder to decide what to do.

After all, what if the guy that actually holds copyright disagrees with
your assessment that such and such is derivation?  Some random guy who
got a copy should hardly be able to trump the guy that actually did the
work.

-Andy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4492 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060220/d3f654fb/attachment-0002.bin