From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-04 08:56:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> Uzytkownik <uzytkownik2_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Simple answer: yes or no?
> > I understand yes, but I'm not sure and, for me, details doesn't matter
> > for me.
> If you really want a simple answer, the only responsible thing for any
> of us to say is "ask a lawyer." None of us are lawyers and we can
> only describe our amateur understanding of the legal issues.
You don't need to be a lawyer*** to realize that, apart from Law History,
Mr. Moglen is Professor of GNU Copyright Law, not Copyright under Berne
Convention and its US "codification", so to speak. All distributions of
publicly available [L]GPL'd works (including distribution of derivative
works under copyright law) fall under 17 USC 109 (nonexistent in the
GNU Republic), not [L]GPL. As for "combinations", software is protected
as literary works by definition, and "combination" of multiple works is
protected as "compilation", not "derivative work."
< Forward Online >
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software
< for the sake of linking-back in future >
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:12:29 +0100, Martin Dickopp
> <expires-2005-04-30_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > That depends on how the program has been created and other details. If a
> > program uses the ISO-standardized C library API, and uses no components
> > of a particular C library while it is being created, then a derivative
> > work of the program and a particular C library is created the moment the
> > program is run (and therefore linked with the library). But I can also
> > imagine different circumstances under which a derivative work is already
> > created when the programm is written.
> Taking two works and pasting them together does not create a derivative
> work, but instead creates some kind of compilation, most likely
> a collective work. If there is no recasting, transforming or adaptation
> of the original work, then I don't think the result fits the statutory
> However a collective work is separate combinations collected into a
> whole which seems to accurately describe linking to a library for at
> least some linking technologies.
> For static linked works, the diference between a derivative work and
> a collective work is usually meaningless because distribution requires the
> distributing the library. But the difference is critical if the two
> joined works are to be distributed separately.
Distribution under "first sale" aside for a moment, here's a nice
explanation highlighting some other differences regarding
compilations and derivative works.
---- HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an ''original work of authorship'' and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law (section 7 of former title 17), the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of ''new'' material in a particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a ''new version'' covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works'' which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A ''derivative work,'' on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting ''one or more preexisting works''; the ''preexisting work'' must come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted. The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to ''any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,'' the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. ---- regards, alexander. ***) http://www.google.de/groups?selm=42374045.B468A838%40web.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk