Date: 20 Dec 2001 22:50:30 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009336534.95d7c6@mired.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <fxlmfxukw9.mfx@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org> References: <local.mail.freebsd-chat/Pine.LNX.4.43.0112181134500.21473-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <local.mail.freebsd-chat/20011218110645.A2061@tisys.org> <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> <lpellpwlhe.llp@localhost.localdomain> <15394.43349.782935.475024@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1009336534.95d7c6@mired.org> writes:
> Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fxlmfxukw9.mfx>