Raul Miller wrote:
Even in 17USC (102), copyright is a protection to something that is "fixed in a tangible medium [...] or communicated in any way". It is the abstract thing that is protected, not the concrete.On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:That is your mistake: it's not the pages that carry protection, it's the words and illustrations on the pages (as in abstract, intelectual entities) that carry protection.I thought copyright was protection for creative works in tangible form. You seem to be saying that copyright is protection for creative works in intangible form?
You inverted the "do more" and "do less". Publishing an arbitrary set of anthologies is "do more" as compared to publishing one story.>In this situation, for the GPL to grant you license to make copies, >you would have to rely on the GPL's grant to make verbatim copies >of the program. If the transformations needed to build the program >are not considered verbatim under Brazilian law, then the GPL fails >to grant license to make copies in those cases. No, because of the principle that if you can do copies of the source, and aggregate it with other stuff, then you can apply automated transformations on it. He who can do more (copy the source, redistribute), can do less (copy the binary, redistribute) as long as the conditions are met.In other words, if a book publisher has permission to publish a story, the publisher also has permission to publish an arbitrary set of anthologies which contain that story -- no additional permissions are needed (at least with respect to that story)?
Thanks,
-- HTH, Massa