Re: Linux and GPLv2
Henning Makholm wrote:
Your claim was: "Bits in .h files are not copyrightable".
Troll editing. My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
normally (>99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based
projects, and often (>50% of the times) find in .h files in c++ based
projects, are those defining interfaces, deeming them uncopyrightable by
current USofAn and Brazilian law". Better?
> 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.
Yes, but (1) the GPL exempts anthology works, in the "mere aggregation"
clause; and (2) the rules are slightly different on the distribution of
anthology works.
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?
You are disappointing me. By now, I would have expected you to understand:
> 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.
But you came up with:
That has nothing to do with whether an offset press has been produced
to print the words.
The *words* are copyrighted, not the book. That is the part I wanted you
to understand:
>> No, it's a processed work. Which is still coverved by the
>> copyright of the original work.
You are missing the difference:
> 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.
Not the book. The words. Ok, so you are saying that: oh, well, there are
some "words" in the .o file that came from the .h file. And I am
counterargumenting: were those "words" the interface definition? If so,
then the law explicitly exempted those from copyright protection.
Why do you distinguish between those to cases?
Repeating: (1) they are distinguished by GPL and (2) they are
distinguished by copyright law.
> 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.
Let's see if I can get to the right point here:
1. The GPL has two different disposition about derivative works versus
anthology works. At first (clause 0) it tries do redefine what it will
call "works based on the Program", and does a lousy job at that, because
it ends with two different definitions (square parentheses are mine:
The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work
based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work
under copyright law [definition A]: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a portion of it [redefinition B], either verbatim or
with modifications and/or translated into another language.
Ok, everybody can claim almost any one of the two definitions as the
"right" one, ie, that one that will apply to the scope of the GPL,
except that in clause 2, paragraph 3, the GPL separates what would cover
anthology works:
mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the
Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
Notice that the FSF used the "work based on the Program" again. It's
pretty clear to me that many if not all Brazilian judges facing this
would consider these two dispositions as separating derivative works
from aggregate works.
Now, if the library license was a proprietary license, that did not even
permit aggregate works, I would give in, but in the case of a GPL'd
library, what you *do* have when you #include a file is a reference to
an interface, and in the case where copyrightable bits end up in the
final .o or a.out/elf file, they are redistributable anyway.
Massa
Reply to: