Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't allow them either. By default, under copyright law, you are not allowed
to re-license or redistribute. A permissive license changes that. However, you are
limited to the enumerated permissions. BSD says you can modify and redistribute in
source or binary form, it does not say you can change the license; hence it is not
permitted.
> > 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.
As they say in New York, "Put up or shut up". Show me where I claim "multiple
copyrights in the same work" are "illegal". You are again reverting to claiming
I have said things I never said, something which you repeatedly did last year when we
were debating this same issue.
> > 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...'
Of course it is. But I thought we were talking about licenses here.
> 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.
So now you admit that the X code remains under the XFree license? Well, until the
next e-mail, I guess.
[ ... ]
> > 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.
Section 6 doesn't say anything of the sort. You apparently agreed yesterday that Qt
was neither a "Program" nor a "work based on a Program". If that is the case, then
Section 6 does not apply to Qt.
If Qt is a "Program", then so would be X. You will note from Section 0 that
accordingly X would have to be licensed under the GPL; if not, it's not a Program.
But you just (apparently) agreed above that X is not licensed under the GPL.
> The X license doesn't pose this problem.
I can see that debating with you is futile. You are far too inconsistent. Feel free
to respond, and have the last word, but I am done debating with you.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: