[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:

> @ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>  >Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine.  This is a
>  >compilation derivative of his compilation.  It's clearly not mere
>  >aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single work.
>  >If I publish an anthology of short stories, that's a compilation.
>  >If one of them is written to be a prequel or sequel to another,
>  >then it is a derived work of that other.  If they *all* have that
>  >relation to one another, I'm publishing what's probably a joint
>  >work.
>  >
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!!!!!

I have taken characters, plots, and other expressions of original
ideas, transformed them, and written into the prequel or sequel.  That
story is derivative of the original story.

Additionally, the compilation of all the stories is more than mere
aggregation on a storage medium: it's not just that I'm putting these
all on my bookshelf, but that I'm printing them all together, selected
as complementary reading material.

>  >>First, compilation != derivative work, AFAIK.
>  >
>  >
>  >Yes, not all compilations are derivative works.  Some are.  If you
>  >want to press the claim that most software is compilations, that's
>  >fine -- we just end up talking about derivative works of
>  >compilations instead of derivative works of simple original works
>  >in a lot of cases.
>  >
> No. Compilations/anthologies are NOT derivative works OF THE PARTS.
> All compilations/anthologies are derivative works OF EARLIER
> EDITIONS OF THE SAME ANTHOLOGIES. Thus, Linux-2.6.7 is a derivative
> work of Linux-2.6.6, but is *not* a derivative work of the
> kernel/drivers/usb/unusual_devs.h (whatever the real name) that is
> included there. It's an anthology work. The work to make the
> anthology is select/organize/dispose its contents, and its contents
> are *separate* works.

Yes.  I think this was unclear to many people here early on, and I'm
very grateful to you and the others who made it explicit.

>  >>>>Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
>  >>>>distribution.
> YES! Yes! Being derivative has a very fixed meaning: begin the
> result of some transformation.
>  >>>
>  >>>And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF
>  >>>objects -- no matter how tricky the instructions are about who
>  >>>does the combination. >>It is to be expected that the FSF argues
> for as broad an
>  >>intepretitation of the GPL as they can without breaking out
>  >>laughing...
> As I said, I don't take the "do not link" GPL disposition at face
> value. The intelligent thing to do is to follow Linus' lead and
> regard derivative works when treating the GPL.

Then where do we get permission to distribute compilations which are
not "mere aggregation" of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible work?

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: