Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)
> > What is specific point of law on which we disagree?
...
> The part where you stated:
>
> > So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but
> > some of the individual elements of it do not.
>
> Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull together, I don't
> think you understand what a copyright in a collective work consists
> of, or what it applies to and what it does not apply to.
This isn't a point of law, this is a statement of mine.
If I try to translate my statement into a point of law, I'd say that
the point of law is something like this:
For derivative works where pre-existing material is covered by copyright
(where it's lawful for the copyright on the derivative work to extend
to the pre-existing material), the existence of a copyright on the
derivative work does not imply any exclusive right to the preexisting
material.
Are you saying that this is the point on which we disagree?
--
Raul
Reply to: