Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Jonathan Wakely wrote: [...]
As I understand it (which is not in *any* way authoritative) if the authors give permission for me to use the code under the GPL (which I think amounts to dual-licensing it to me as Boost and GPL?) then I am free to modify their original code, still under the GPL. The modified
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
version then has my copyright (which I assign to the FSF) _and_ the original authors copyright statements on.
Alexander, whatever your views on whether the GPL can be upheld, you seem to be pretty knowledgable on copyright issues, have I got it even partly right?
I think you got it right.
Except that you don't need any license at all to create an "adaptation" under 17 USC 117 and keep it private. The precondition is just a lawful ownership of a copy. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=410F4FD4.243B2F35%40web.de (see quotation from "contu6.html") BTW, in light of 17 USC 117, I don't quite get how SCO is going to establish copyright infringement in the case against AutoZone even if AZ indeed "copied" SCO's shared libraries during migration to Linux (as SCO seems to claim)... provided that AZ still owned sufficient number of copies of SCO OpenServer or whatever bundle with libraries included. regards, alexander.