[conspire] Chess pictures, licensing, and the law of "derivative works"

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Jan 16 14:55:31 PST 2009

I wrote:

> There is, it turns out, a great deal of FSF bullshit hidden in that
> wording, because GPL (like other licences) has no such power, because
> it has no such reach.  In choosing a licence for an instance of a
> creative work, an author (copyright owner, actually) is expressing his
> requirements for redistribution of his/her property and and the creation
> and distribution of _derivative works_ of his/her property.  Inherently,
> a licence's reach cannot extend beyond derivative works.

I should qualify that by saying "...under copyright law."  Contract law
permits to be just as cussed in your licence conditions as you wish,
e.g., "you agree that these chess pictures may be used in combination
with works created by anyone who is not a left-handed Scandinavian", 
in which case use of my separate works, seeing as I'm a sinistral
Viking-descendant, would violate contract requirements without regard to
whether derivative work law (a concept from copyright law) applies.

Anyhow, GPLv2 and v3 are, explicitly, grants of rights under _copyright_

More information about the conspire mailing list