[... "derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) ...]
I suppose that id "lrosen" belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm. Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU definition of "derivative work".) ----- comment 637: Derivative works Regarding the text: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either modified or unmodified. In section: gpl3.definitions.p0.s2 Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST comments: The statement beginning "that is to say..." is not an accurate description of "derivative works" under US copyright law. If you want the copyleft provisions of GPLv3 to apply to "collective works" then you should say so explicitly, rather than use language reminiscent of the definition of collective works when trying to describe derivative works. The current draft, in this respect, is both ambiguous and potentially very misleading. See 17 USC 101. noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST comment 635: Derivative works Regarding the text: In section: login Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST comments: The "that is to say..." provision following the colon in section 0.A is not a correct summary of what a derivative work is under copyright law. See 17 USC 101 ["Definitions"]. In fact, it is an inaccurate way of describing derivative works. This makes the license ambiguous and potentially unenforceable in some circumstances. If you wish the reach of the GPL copyleft provision to include collective works, say so explicitly. noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST ----- AFAICS the GPLv3 is quite explicit in regards of manifesting blatant misuse of copyright by trying to extract rights to non-derivatives (see the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source Code). regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss