Raul Miller wrote:
This is disputed. And you know that. I have already presented a lot of arguments of why can't the second part of this phrase be a re-statement. You have not, insofar, presented any contrary arguments.On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:Succinctly describing the flaw: 1. '' a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law '' -- this is a definition. It defines what the expression "work based on the Program" means throughout the GPL text.This is part of the definition. You cut it off before the end of the sentence.
2. '' : that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language '' -- this is an attempt to restate (1) above, that fails because: a) "a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language" is not equivalent nor explain nor precisely exemplifies what is "the Program or any derivative work under copyright law". This is relevant because a) there are derivative works of the (original) Program that do NOT contain the Program nor verbatim nor with modifications nor translated into another language.At minimum, there must be some modified form of some of the creative content of the Program in a derivativework, or it's no a derivative work under copyright law.
Where did you get this idea?
Yes. Tell me: which (modified?) part of (copyrightable) content from "Action Comics #1" is present in "Smallville: Pilot"? These are concrete examples of original and derivative works. If you want to attain yourself to computer programs, try to find any (copyrightable) code in the linux process scheduler, as in version 2.6.11, that was in linux 0.01 process scheduler. A hint: a lot of transformations can erase any trace of the original, without breaking the derivation link.But maybe you have some counter example?
Yes, copyright law does restrict those cases. Yes, you need the grant the GPL gives you in the sections 1, associated with 2, para 3, 5, and 10 to distribute works that contain the Program.b) there are works that contain the Program, verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another languages that are NOT derivative works of the Program.Copyright law does not restrict those cases, so you do not need the GPL to grant you license in those cases.
No argument of mine is directed at you. Your arguments regarding copyright issues (and the distinction between collective and derivative works) are under the microscope.On the other hand, if you did need the GPL to grant you license,the GPL is granting you permission to make verbatim copies of the program.For example.(I'm snipping arguments which are directed at me, rather than at these copyright issues.)
Thanks,
Welcome, Massa