Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > 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