> By "creative combination" do you mean what US copyright law refers to > as compilations (or their subset collective works)?
Not only. By "creative combination" I mean either a compilation or a derivative work. I was a bit unclear about that because I wasn't really addressing compilation rights at the time. For example, if you adapt a FreeBSD driver to work on Linux, you may be creatively combining aspects of the driver with code from the kernel. The result is one that you have copyright interest in because it is a derivative work but probably not a compilation copyright. The choice of one driver and one OS, where the goal is to make the driver work on the OS, probably is not sufficiently creative to justify a compilation copyright. However, this is clearly not mere aggregation if significant changes are needed to make the driver work with Linux. > Compilations can be creative combinations while still being mere > aggregation under the GPL. For example, if applications are selected > to run with a Linux kernel, and they are distributed together, the > collection is a creative selection -- and this seems to be one of the > cases evoked by the GPL's reference to "mere aggregation". See also > practically every Linux distribution on the planet. You are quite correct. In this case, the GPL may not require you to license the compilation copyright. I believe this is so even if all the works are covered by the GPL. Arguably, that's a defect in the GPL because it means there might be situations in which you might receive a CD that contains only GPL'd software and not be able to redistribute it due to a compilation copyright. I honestly have no position on whether "mere aggregation" should include aggregating works where there is sufficient creative input to justify a compilation copyright on the result. I think either position can be argued. I think the intent of the GPL was probably that mere aggregation not include compilation rights because that leads to strange results. I don't know of any evidence that compilation rights were considered when the GPL was written. If so, the deliberate lack of mention might weigh in the balance. > Compilations also can be creative combinations and *more* than mere > aggregation: for example, Linux with respect to its subsystems, or any > case where a larger work is derivative of one of its components. Of course. If I write a Linux kernel module, it might be a derivative work because it contains significant portions of the Linux kernel source code. This is true before anyone compiles it or links it. When I say linking cannot create a derivative work, I mean assuming the work was not derivative in the first place. I am also further assuming there is insufficient creativity in the choice of which works to link to justify a compilation copyright. > However, compilations (even to the extent they are creative > combinations) are not necessarily derivative works of their elements. > For more details, see > http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#compilations Because compilation copyrights don't really affect the Tivo and GPLv2/GPLv3 issue, I tend to ignore them when discussing that subject. If you think I'm wrong and there is some relationship between them, please let me know. I admit I may not have given that possibility enough thought. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
