Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/05, Michael K. Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > As I discuss below, there are considerable grounds for believing that the
> > category "derivative works" is completely disjoint from "collective
> > works".
> In other words, you can't have a work where both categories apply.
> On 5/10/05, Michael K. Edwards <email@example.com> wrote:
> > A translation of an arrangement of two works, selected by a
> > non-trivial criterion, is ... wait for it ... a derivative work _of_ a
> > collection! "of" \neq "and".
> In other words, these two categories are not disjoint.
I do not believe this to be a contradiction. Collective works and
derivative works are two entirely different concepts in copyright law,
that nonetheless can apply to the same work. In their definition their
have nothing in regard with each other, and are both grounds to grant
copyright protection (or authorship, as is the more continental
approach to copyright). But that they are not related in definition
does not bar the possibility that in fact they can be applied to the
same work. This would lead to a double copyright protection, but if
you look at it from the viewpoint of authorship, this simply means
there are two different reasons why one can be considered an author of
an original work.
A derivative work is not a collective work and vice-versa, but one
work can be both at the same time.