gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library


From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:11:14 -0000

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/25/2010 2:36 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere
> > aggregation" in GNU-speak)
> >
> > Got it now?
> 
> No, of course not. Daniel Wallace and you are both people who
> deliberately choose to misinterpret the GPL for your own purposes.
> Naturally, courts see through such flimflam, and no amount of
> blustering on the internet can counter that.
> 
> GPLv2 says
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
>      Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights
>      or contest your rights to work written entirely by you;
>      rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the
>      distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
>      Program.
> 
>      In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on
>      the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
>      Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium
>      does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
> 
> It is clear, therefore, that GPLv2 distinguishes between mere
> aggregations and collective works which are not mere aggregations,
> so repeatedly claiming that it does not is foolish.

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

"I have already explained the fundamental difference in copyright law
between a collective work and a derivative work.

You will recall generally that the former is a collection of independent
works and the latter is a work based upon one or more preexisting works.
A work containing another work is a collective work. A work based on
another work is a derivative work. Merging those concepts in the GPL
would leave no distinction between a derivative and collective work, an
absurd result considering the importance of those two defined terms in
copyright law.

[...]

The law makes it clear that the GPL can’t affect the licenses to those
preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesn’t matter.

The GPL then expresses its intent this way:

  The intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution
  of derivative or collective works based on the Program. (GPL
  section 2.)

That may be the intent, but is that what the GPL actually does? This is
a critical example of imprecise phrasing. Who gets “to exercise the
right to control” distribution? Certainly the owner of a collective or
derivative work gets “to exercise the right to control” those works, and
the owner of each contribution gets “to exercise the right to control”
his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].)

Does the phrase based on the program refer to both derivative and
collective works? That isn’t technically correct, at least under the
U.S. Copyright Act, because a derivative work is a work based on one or
more preexisting works, but a collective work is not. (17 U.S.C. § 101.)
There is still no meaningful clue about linkage. 

[...]

Finally the GPL directly addresses the distribution of collective 
works, noting that the GPL does not apply to them:

  ...In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
  on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on
  the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium
  does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
  (GPL section 2.)

This sentence seems to mean that only derivative works are
covered by the GPL reciprocity provision, and that “mere
aggregation” of separate works onto common media (or common
computer memory?) does not require reciprocity, even if
those mere aggregations are distributed in one unit (i.e., “as
part of the whole”).  "

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization
of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the
pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself.
"[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with
the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v.
Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). . .

In pertinent part, the GPL provides that, if a licensee of computer 
software under the GPL modifies that software or creates a derivative 
work from it, that subsequent work, when distributed, must be licensed 
to all third parties at no charge under the same terms and conditions. "

derivative work != collective work (aka compilation aka "mere
aggregation" in GNU-speak)

Go to doctor, silly Hyman.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <address@hidden> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]