Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere > > aggregation" in GNU-speak) > > > > Got it now? > > No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who > deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes. > Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of > blustering on the internet can counter that. > > GPLv2 says > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html> > Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights > or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; > rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the > distribution of derivative or collective works based on the > Program. > > In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on > the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the > Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium > does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. > > It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere > aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations, > so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish.
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf "I have already explained the fundamental difference in copyright law between a collective work and a derivative work. You will recall generally that the former is a collection of independent works and the latter is a work based upon one or more preexisting works. A work containing another work is a collective work. A work based on another work is a derivative work. Merging those concepts in the GPL would leave no distinction between a derivative and collective work, an absurd result considering the importance of those two defined terms in copyright law. [...] The law makes it clear that the GPL cant affect the licenses to those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesnt matter. The GPL then expresses its intent this way: The intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (GPL section 2.) That may be the intent, but is that what the GPL actually does? This is a critical example of imprecise phrasing. Who gets to exercise the right to control distribution? Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets to exercise the right to control those works, and the owner of each contribution gets to exercise the right to control his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].) Does the phrase based on the program refer to both derivative and collective works? That isnt technically correct, at least under the U.S. Copyright Act, because a derivative work is a work based on one or more preexisting works, but a collective work is not. (17 U.S.C. § 101.) There is still no meaningful clue about linkage. [...] Finally the GPL directly addresses the distribution of collective works, noting that the GPL does not apply to them: ...In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. (GPL section 2.) This sentence seems to mean that only derivative works are covered by the GPL reciprocity provision, and that mere aggregation of separate works onto common media (or common computer memory?) does not require reciprocity, even if those mere aggregations are distributed in one unit (i.e., as part of the whole). " http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf "In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). . . In pertinent part, the GPL provides that, if a licensee of computer software under the GPL modifies that software or creates a derivative work from it, that subsequent work, when distributed, must be licensed to all third parties at no charge under the same terms and conditions. " derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere aggregation" in GNU-speak) Go to doctor, silly Hyman. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
