On 3/25/2010 4:22 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
There is no difficulty within copyright law for a
rightshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS
holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone
copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make
and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating
the covered work provided you meet condition two".
Only in your copyright misused delusional mind. Just because some moron
who believes a copyright license is not a contract says so doesn't make
it so. RMS's GNUtian acolytes may believe this tripe about collective
works but that doesn't make it true in the world of real people.
No, through the exclusive rights granted by 17 USC 106.
The control a rights holder gets is extremely precise,
and every collective work requires separate permission
from the rights holders of the components in order for
the collective work to be copied and distributed. That's
not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS>
It would scarcely preserve the author’s copyright
in a contribution as contemplated by Congress if a
print publisher, without the author’s permission,
could reproduce or distribute discrete copies of
the contribution in isolation or within new
collective works.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
