On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Come on, Raul: a collective work is NEVER a derivative work. Never ever > ever.
What's this? Proof by repeated assertion? > A collective work CONTAINS another works, and is copyrightable per se if > it is intelectually novel by virtue of its selection and disposition of > contents. > > A derivative work is the result of an intelectually-novel TRANSFORMATION > of other work. And not, putting it in a bag with other works does not > count as transformation. And in some cases, you have works where both statements are true. (For example: The Very Best of MTV Unplugged, Vol 2.) > SOME detail need to be relevant, because you are not explaining where > your interpretation of the GPL draws the line between mere aggregation > (which I happen to think is another name for collective works) and works > based on the program (which I think is another name for derivative works). This is a creative issue. Details are relevant, but they vary from case to case. If you want to discuss a specific case, I'll try to do so. > M.K.Edwards set those in your discourse as being one filesystem entity > (as in a file) and one filesystem (as in a CD/HD image), but I did not > see those, too. So, I would like you to clarify to me what do you think > are those limits. Sometimes these details indicate something of significance, sometimes they don't. Like I said, this is a creative issue, and file boundaries are not in and of themselves a creative issue. You can trivially put multiple creative works in a file (zip, tar, ...), and you can triviallys take a single creative work and separate it out into multiple files (zip, split, ...) > IOW: How exactly do you construe the mere aggregation clause? What are > -- exactly, in your opinion -- the technical boundaries of "mere" > aggregation? I do not believe that copyright depends on technical issues. It depends on creative issues. That's just something we have to live with. > >>4. Extend the "mere aggregation" exception implicitly to Section 3, > >>since it contains the parenthetical comment "(or a work based on it, > >>under Section 2)" in place of the exact phrase "work based on the > >>Program" that was defined in Section 0. Don't worry about Sections 5 > >>and 6, which use the phrase "work based on the Program" unqualified, > >>since there's at least one way to read them in which they would have > >>the same meaning whether or not the "mere aggregation" exception > >>applies. > > > >In essence, yes. > > > And yet you cannot see the flaw in your logic? Even if the English > grammar were ultra-flexible, it's not (better yet -- it should not be) > when applied to contracts and other legal texts. There, you MUST use the > formal grammar, and you MUST read those terms under the rules of the > formal grammar. The sloppiness of MKE's construct, above doesn't mean that he missed the point. That said: his use of "implicitly", "in place of', "don't worry" and "same meaning" are non-factual. > >I highly recommend you read circular 14, and pay particular > >attention to the examples which use the phrase "based on". > Could you please quote -- with a reasonable amount of context -- said > examples, so those of us who do not have any access to search them can > verify what you are saying? First, could you please bring up http://google.com/search?q=circular+14 and read the html version of that document which Google offers? Thanks, -- Raul