Glorious

[mdlbear]

Seen in Pamela Jones' Groklaw article that comments on, and quotes in full, Eben Moglen's most recent position paper on the SCO case:

Groklaw is allowed to reproduce his paper in full, because first, he copyrighted it and then he granted everyone permission to reproduce it verbatim, provided his permission notice, his license you could say, is preserved.

It's legal, because he, the author, has the right to forbid copies under copyright law or to relax the copyright restrictions. It's his property, so he gets to do what he likes with his own property.

Now, I can reproduce it verbatim, but only if I follow his instructions, because it's not my property, even though I tacked on this paragraph ahead of it. His part is still his, and I can't argue that because I tacked on a paragraph of my own, I can release the combination under some terms of my own choosing or that I can revoke his permission to reproduce, because I want my paragraph under total copyright control with no relaxed terms. What he wrote is still his property, not mine. I can release my own paragraph any way I like separately, but if I release his paper with it, it stays under his chosen restrictions.

You can reproduce it too, but only if you also follow his instructions, because it is still his property, even if you got it from me instead of directly from him.

Anything hard about that concept? Unfair? Viral? Unconstitutional?

Please note that PJ's writings on Groklaw are published under a Creative Commons License that allows me, in turn, to reproduce parts of it provided I attribute it properly and don't make money off it. You can do the same.