From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Dec 20 22:50:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lists.blarg.net (lists.blarg.net [206.124.128.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AB137B416 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:50:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from thig.blarg.net (thig.blarg.net [206.124.128.18]) by lists.blarg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0F8BD0B; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([206.124.139.115]) by thig.blarg.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12032; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:50:02 -0800 Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fBL6oUM66604; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 22:50:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@blarg.net) To: "Mike Meyer" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop References: <200112182010.fBIKA9739621@prism.flugsvamp.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218180720.00d6e520@localhost> <20011219091631.Q377@prism.flugsvamp.com> <0en10ey5jo.10e@localhost.localdomain> <20011219215548.D76354@prism.flugsvamp.com> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 20 Dec 2001 22:50:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> Message-ID: Lines: 76 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Mike Meyer" writes: > Gary W. Swearingen types: > > When you combine copies you also combine the works by a kind of > > instantaneous communication (lawyers > physicists). :-) This then > > propagates instantaneously to other copies under the same concept. I should have know better than to write that silly thing. Bound to be the part quoted. It was going to be hard to explain and I figured people would have figured it out on their own by then anyway. Whoops. > Having read your analysis of the derivative work case, I want to know > what "combine copies" means? From 17 USC 101: compilation -- For copyright purposes, a work formed by selecting and assembling preexisting materials (generally facts or data unprotected by copyright) in a unique way to form an original work of authorship. A database is a good example of a compilation. A compilation must have some creative aspects--such as the way it is organized and the materials selected for inclusion--to qualify for copyright protection. For example, a list of favorite Web sites including the word "gelatin," arranged by category, would be rather creative, while a phone directory would not. Also: collective work -- For copyright purposes, a work, such as a periodical, anthology or encyclopedia, in which a number of separate and independent works are assembled into one work. To create a collective work, permission must be obtained from the owners of the copyrights of the constituent parts (assuming such parts are not already in the public domain). Although the author of the compilation may not own the copyright to any of the individual parts, the creativity involved in selecting and organizing the constituent materials is in itself protected by copyright. 17 USC 101 unfortunately doesn't define "derivative", but has a section 103 partially titled "Compilations and derivative works" in which it always uses that phrase as a unit as if they're not much different. The definitions seem to be couched in terms of "works" rather than "copies", but there will, of course, always be copies of the works compiled and copies of the compiled work. Also generally instructive are the short sections 102 and 106: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html What I was getting at in the quote above is that the works and copies are intertwined; you can't have a copy without a work and vice-versa. You can have multiple copies of one work, of course. My "combine copies" was loose writing. I doubt it makes much difference which term from 17 USC it most closely matches as far as my argument goes, but for the case being discussed I suppose it would have been better to say something like "create a collective work" or maybe just "derivative". > This sounds like it's possible for party A to license software S from > party B, then have the terms of the license changed by party C by > "combining copies", even though they have nothing to do with A, B or > any rights to S. That one is a bit hard to swallow. I'm not sure I understand the scenario, or at least the reason for it. C could "combine copies" of S and something else and create a collective work (which I think can also be called a "derivative"), but, not owning S or having license to use it, may not copy or distribute copies of such work. (Actually, combining copies probably constitutes copying of the parts an so he probably can't even create the original copy.) He certainly may not change any license on S, unless there's something in this scenario you haven't told me (like something's BSDL'd or GPL'd). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message