Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Alexander Terekhov]

Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> There are multiple copyrights in a compilation.  Any copyrights
> in the underlying works continue to exist, and there is a new
> copyright on the particular selection and arrangement of the
> compilation.  The permission of all copyright owners are then
> required for the reproduction or distribution of the compilation.

Note that GPL'ed works are available to everyone in infinite 
quantity. No additional reproduction needed. I think that I 
don't need any permissions to distribute compilations that 
include lawfully owned copies. Heck, consider:

< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >

Red Hat, Inc.:

  Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to 
  impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the 
  comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think 
  someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about 
  are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109. 
  The primary difference between digital and nondigital products 
  with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently 
  licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded 
  from the Internet without the printed documentation, without 
  the box, and without the installation service. Many open source 
  and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft. 
  ... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would 
  jeopardize the ability of open source and free software 
  licensor to require [blah blah]

Time Warner, Inc.:

  We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an 
  authorized source to a purchaser’s computer, can result in 
  lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.

Library Associations:

  First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can 
  result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally 
  engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a 
  tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright 
  owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work 
  to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time 
  Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
  on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the 
  first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the 
  literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
  provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose" 
  and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion 
  because of changing habits due to new inventions and 
  discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 
  151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale 
  doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property 
  throughout society.

regards,
alexander.