In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fung wrote: > > > > Dear folks, > > > > I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while > > reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a > > derivative work combined from software licensed under [whatever] > > Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright > law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work. ... > > consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other. > The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does > not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A > are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or > separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are > defined in 17 USC as literary works But that's not really a good analogy. Combining two programs is not just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a copy of the other. To use your analogy to scientific papers, it would be like copying sections of B into A rather than referring to them in a footnote. I think a compilation usually means that the original works can be recognized as distinct components of the result. A conference proceedings book is a compilation. But when the originals are comingled as I describe above, the result is a derivative work, not a compilation. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
