Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 11:37:20PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Raul Miller wrote:
> >
> > [ stawmen arguments, conclusory stuff, and flames snipped ]
> >
> > Oops, nothing left :-(
>
> For instance:
>
> <quote>
> Please read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particularly
> section (c).
> </quote>
I addressed compilations in
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00150.html. I'm
not sure what 201(c) adds to that.
If I can take the liberty to quote from your prior e-mail, starting with my
paragraph:
> > More to the point, if the entire source code were a "Program", Debian
> > could not distribute the Gimp, Gnome or any of the other X-linked
> > apps which Debian distributes either, since XFree is *not* licensed
> > under the GPL (and for that matter libc is *not* licensed under the
> > GPL -- sure it has a conversion provision in Section 3 of the LGPL,
> > but that only applies if you change the header files -- has Debian
> > done this???? or is that an "acceptable" technical violation of
> > extremely clear requirements in the LGPL???). But I guess consistency
> > in interpretation does not matter when you take the moral high ground
> > . . . ..
>
> This indicates a very serious failure to understand copyright law.
>
> Please read http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html, particularly
> section (c).
>
> The essential point here is that it is possible to own the copyright
> on a collective work even though someone else owns the copyright on
> components of that work.
>
It is obvious to me that you can have a separate copyright in a collective
work, as well as in a compilation. Perhaps you can spell out in detail how
201(c) is relevant to the point I was making. By detail I mean don't leave
any step in your argument for me to divine -- including every single step
in your reasoning -- all premises, all deductions/inductions, all
conclusions.
The starting point is this. You claim that when someone links Qt to
kghostview it becomes one "Program" which must be licensed under the GPL in
its entirety. I said, if that's the case, it's also true with Gimp/X.
Then I said, that's a problem b/c X is not licensed under the GPL, just
like Qt is not. You then respond to that by quoting Section 201(c). The
connection completely escapes me. How does Section 201(c) distinguish
between Qt and X?
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: