On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 17:29, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:
> If an artist paints a picture with a hole in it -- a window frame,
> say, in an odd shape, and a second artist paints a picture to fit in
> that hole and stylistically match the whole picture, that second
> artist's copyright on the combination persists, even if they are
> distributed seperately.
Yes, you seem to have got me there. If a second person were to
independently recreate it, that'd be fine --- but Debian isn't
independently recreating the work; we're reading the artist's README
file.
However, upon closer inspection, I have a better way to argue that the
plugin author doesn't have a copyright on the compilation:
A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
assembling of *PREEXISTING* materials or of data that are
selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the
resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of
authorship. The term ''compilation'' includes collective works.
Emphasis added, of course. So, when I write a plugin I can't claim to
have created a compilation of the plugin and the host, because the
plugin is not preexisting.
Following the readme file's statement that A is a plugin for HOST
certainly does not create a compilation original work of authorship.
Even if it did, that copyright would belong to the Debian maintainer,
and he certainly can't sue Debian for distributing it after he uploads
it.[1]
So, substituting that (hopefully correct) logic in place of the flawed
one in Message-ID:<[🔎] 94824CFC-2FFF-11D8-A22E-00039317863E@suespammers.org>
my conclusion still seems to hold.
FOOTNOTES
1. Equitable estoppel and all. Judges really should learn about
*plonk*, it's a much better word than 'estoppel.'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part