> The entire "Changed Work" is NOT under the GPL. Only the *owner* of a copyrighted work may *license* his original work. 17 USC sec. 106 says: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the *owner* of copyright under this title has the *exclusive* rights to do and to authorize any of the following: . . ." If multiple individual *owners* of the different works comprising a derivative work *contractually* agree to distribute their respective original works under a common license they may do so -- but that principle absolutely *FORBIDS* the GPL from being used to license derivative works because the GPL is a "license and not a contract" -- at least according to the Free Software Foundation. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html Hmmmmmmm..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070929/950ff1ba/attachment.html>