Re: Linux and GPLv2
Scripsit Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>>Snip "explanation" that does not do anything the idea that bits are
>>treated differently by copyright just becuase they are in a file
>>called .h.
> Repeating: bits that are in files called .h are not copied in your
> work,
They may be, as I have explained.
> The compiled executable may or may not be an anthology
> work containing the contents of the .h.
Which means that they are copied there.
> It's not the magical fact that the file is ending in .h (or .inc).
Your claim was: "Bits in .h files are not copyrightable".
> It's the fact that you do not transform it, so you do not create a
> derivative work.
Derivative work, anthology: Does the difference matter? To copy either
you need the permission of the original author.
>>So what? They are being reproduced, and the mechanicalness of the
>>reproduction does not prevent copyright from applying to the result.
> But the relationship of the result WRT the individual copyrights is
> different than many people (including who wrote the damned "do not
> link" paragraph in the GPL) expect.
The relationship is: "If you copy the result you need to have the
permission of the author (or fall within whatever specific exemptions
your jurisdiction happens to offer)."
>>>Nothing that comes out of an automated process is *per-se*
>>>copyrightable.
>>Do you still think this applies if the automated process is an offset
>>press?
> Yes.
So if I buy a book that has been produced in an offset press, you
assert that the book is not *per se* copyrightable. Hence I can freely
create as many reprints as I like and sell them?
> The copyright does not apply to the printed book /per-se/... it's
> applied to the intellectual content (the original creation of
> spirit). Imagine I make a program that prints random words. The result
> is not copyrightable, even if it makes any sense at all.
That has nothing to do with whether an offset press has been produced
to print the words.
>>No, it's a processed work. Which is still coverved by the copyright of
>>the original work.
> What you are calling a processed work is just another "face" of the
> same work;
Whatever you like. The outcome is still that you need the original
author's permission to copy it.
>>I repeat: No, but the resulting .o file may be derived from another
>>work that the compiler also read while producing it.
> Not derived. Never. To derive you need inteligence (in Brazilian
> letter-of-law, "spirit").
Says who? Again, the offset press is not intelligent, but the books
that it spits out are still covered by the author's copyright.
>>No, but myfile.o may be. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here).
> An anthology work, maybe, a derivative work, never.
Why do you distinguish between those to cases?
> The rules for anthology works and derivative works are
> different.
How so? Your examples seem to try to explain how you choose to apply
different words to slightly different situations, but the end result
about which rights you need to have to copy the result is the same.
--
Henning Makholm "However, the fact that the utterance by
Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the
existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling."
Reply to: