Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 12:47:33AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > <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.
That message has false statements in it, for example:
> The BSD permits the recipient to distribute a binary copy without
> also distributing the source code; by placing that code under the
> GPL, you forbid someone to do that. ... The relevant point is you
> are changing the package of rights that apply to a copyrighted work,
> without permission from the author to do that.
The BSD license doesn't forbid the restrictions of the GPL.
> I'm not sure what 201(c) adds to that.
201(c), in contrast, shows that you can have multiple copyrights on
the same work. You've claimed that this is illegal, but 201(c) shows
otherwise.
> 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.
You claim that '.. if the entire source code were a "Program", Debian
could not distribute the Gimp, Gnome or any .. X-linked apps.. since XFree is *not
licensed under the GPL..'
201(c) states 'Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective
work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole...'
In this case the Gimp is an example of a "Program" which is a GPL licensed
collective work containing GPLed material and X licensed material.
> 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.
Well, you can count on me to respond with far more attention to detail
than you did in <38A7867F.5C24FC91@mieterra.com>.
If you feel that <38A7867F.5C24FC91@mieterra.com> does not represent
adequate detail then please replace it with a more appropriate message.
> 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?
201(c) applies equally to works which include Qt and works which
include X.
However, the X license does not impose any more restrictions on the
collective work than the GPL does. The QPL license does. Under section 6
of the GPL, this means that it's not legal to distribute GPLed code which
incorporates QPL licensed code. The X license doesn't pose this problem.
--
Raul
Reply to: