Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
Raul Miller wrote:
> [I've deleted a lot of material which I don't think is relevant to
> discuss. For the most part, I agreed with his points from this portion
> of this message. I disagree with some of the points he has stated in
> other messages, but I've already stated those disagreements and see no
> urgency in repeating those disagreements in response to any urls.]
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 01:34:44AM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Now, in the Gimp/X example, let's consider what the "collective
> > works" copyright resides in. What have you done? You have added X
> > to Gimp, changing neither. Thus, your "collective works" copyright
> > would reside in the X/Gimp combination -- in the selection of using
> > X and Gimp together. I doubt very much you would be entitled to a
> > copyright in that. There is no originality in doing this. If there is
> > no copyright, there is no "work", and hence, under Section 0 of the
> > GPL, no "Program" (in fact it does not make sense to license something
> > that is in the public domain).
>
> It's been my experience that you can't just place two pieces of code
> next to each other and expect them to work flawlessly. Someone had to
> debug them and put some real work into making them work properly together.
You fundamentally don't understand what a copyright in a collective work is.
There are copyrights in the component works, and a separate copyright in
their collection. Thus, any origniality used in kghostview (a component
work) has no bearing on the originality used in the collective work (the
selection of using kghostview together with Qt).
Perhaps this is too abstract for you. Perhaps an example would help. I want
to create an anthology of short fiction works. I select 10 short stories,
each written by a different author, to include in it, based on an original
selection criteria. There are now 11 copyrights in the anthology. Each
author of the short stories retains a copyright in the 10 stories. I have a
copyright in the selection of those stories. This means that if you want to
come along and create an anthology that creates exactly the same 10 stories,
even if you get rights to distribute the 10 individual works, you cannot
combine them like I did (at least not by copying my selection -- if you come
up with the combination independently, of course, copyright law does not
restrict you). That combination is my copyright. My copyright does not
extend to any part of the 10 stories -- read Section 201(c) again (the
relevant language being, "Copyright in each separate contribution to a
collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a
whole").
> Once that work has been done, you're talking about copying and
> distribution issues, not authorship.
>
> > Moreover, even if you could get a copyright in that combination, there
> > is no problem with releaseing the kghostview/Qt combination under
> > the GPL.
>
> 3b of the QPL prevents you from distributing QPLed code under the
> terms of Section 2 of the GPL.
Again, you don't understand what a copyright in a compilation or collective
work is. The QPL has nothing to do with the copyright in the collective
work (assuming there is such a thing in the kghostview example).
> > Note that the collective work copyright does *not* reside in
> > kghostview or in Qt; only in the combination (basically in the
> > selection of which works to combine).
>
> You're now claiming that the author of kghostview just happened,
> coincidentally, with no creativity, to come up with something that works
> with Qt?
No, but that has to do with the copyright on kghostview. You just don't get
it.
> > I have no problem releasing my selection of combining kghostview and
> > Qt under the GPL -- people are free to copy and change that selection
> > however they please. What restrictions of the GPL would be violated?
>
> Section 6. [paraphrased: works based on the GPLed program must be
> distributed under terms which are no more restrictive than the terms of
> the GPL.]
Right, and I can distribute my copyright in the kghostview/Qt combination
under the GPL (I don't see where that is required, but assuming it were).
> Section 2b. [paraphrased: to publish kghostview, you must do so under
> terms which don't allow Troll to relicense Qt mods such that the new
> license would conflict with the GPL.]
Again you are confused. You are talking about Qt source code again, whereas
the discussion is about the (supposed) copyright in the collective work.
> With each of these clauses, you do have to take other parts of the
> license into account. However, there is nothing about section 6 or
> about section 2b which lets you ignore any other parts of the license.
The only person ignoring anything is you. You are ignoring the fact that the
collective work copyright does not include the Qt copyright.
> > (I note in this regard that the way the GPL is written it makes
> > virtually no sense to apply it to a copyright in collective works).
>
> The author of the GPL would appear to disagree with you. Otherwise,
> why would section 2 have the text:
>
> ... the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
> derivative or collective works based on the Program.
>
> ?
Of course the GPL controls the distribution of collective works based on the
Program. That does not mean, however, that it controls the licensing of the
collective work itself; rather, it controls the licensing of the GPL
component of the collective work and, to some degree, through the "no-charge"
and "complete source code" requirements, the licensing of the other
components of the collective work.
> > Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the components of the
> > collective work itself must be licensed the same way the collective
> > work is.
>
> Sure, but in the case of the GPL, there's an explicit requirement that
> the license on the components be no more restrictive than the GPL itself.
If it's that explicit, I wonder why there is no language quoted to support
this statement. If you refer to Section 6, that only applies to the Program
and works based on the Program, and Qt is neither.
> And the GPL is very clear about what it means if the license on any of
> the components is more restrictive than the GPL.
>
> > > I did not agree that X is not licensed under the GPL. I did agree
> > > that X is licensed under XFree. I don't know why you have a problem
> > > with this.
> >
> > For the reasons I stated in
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00151.html
>
> Example statement with false implications:
>
> ... the BSD license says you can modify the source code, it does not
> permit you to modify the license. The copyright holder still holds
> the copyright to every copy of the work that is created.
>
> With a collective work, there can be more than one copyright holder.
> And, therefore, the copyrights which are granted are only the copyrights
> granted by all copyright holders.
I guess you mean you can only redistribute with permission of all relevant
copyright holders.
> If one copyright holder doesn't grant rights it doesn't matter that
> another copyright holder does grant those rights..
>
> This is why BSD licensed material can be turned into proprietary,
> commercial works, such as those advertised at www.f5.com.
That can be done b/c BSD does not require code added to it to be licensed
under the BSD; however, the BSD code still remains so licensed.
> > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00160.html.
>
> Example statement with false implications:
>
> ... I suppose you can say that you are distributing the BSD code to me
> both under BSD and GPL, and I must comply with both of them. Then I
> wonder, but doesn't requiring me to comply with BSD (the advertising
> restriction and the copyright notice) require me to violate the GPL?
> Ahh, but you may say that is only a technical violation. ...
>
> No clauses from the BSD license were presented which conflicted with
> any of the clauses from the GPL.
The advertising clause is a "further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein" (Section 6 of the GPL).
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: