Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> Come on, Raul: a collective work is NEVER a derivative work. Never ever
> ever.
What's this? Proof by repeated assertion?
> A collective work CONTAINS another works, and is copyrightable per se if
> it is intelectually novel by virtue of its selection and disposition of
> contents.
>
> A derivative work is the result of an intelectually-novel TRANSFORMATION
> of other work. And not, putting it in a bag with other works does not
> count as transformation.
And in some cases, you have works where both statements are true.
(For example: The Very Best of MTV Unplugged, Vol 2.)
> SOME detail need to be relevant, because you are not explaining where
> your interpretation of the GPL draws the line between mere aggregation
> (which I happen to think is another name for collective works) and works
> based on the program (which I think is another name for derivative works).
This is a creative issue. Details are relevant, but they vary from case
to case. If you want to discuss a specific case, I'll try to do so.
> M.K.Edwards set those in your discourse as being one filesystem entity
> (as in a file) and one filesystem (as in a CD/HD image), but I did not
> see those, too. So, I would like you to clarify to me what do you think
> are those limits.
Sometimes these details indicate something of significance, sometimes
they don't. Like I said, this is a creative issue, and file boundaries are
not in and of themselves a creative issue.
You can trivially put multiple creative works in a file (zip, tar, ...), and
you can triviallys take a single creative work and separate it out
into multiple files (zip, split, ...)
> IOW: How exactly do you construe the mere aggregation clause? What are
> -- exactly, in your opinion -- the technical boundaries of "mere"
> aggregation?
I do not believe that copyright depends on technical issues. It depends
on creative issues. That's just something we have to live with.
> >>4. Extend the "mere aggregation" exception implicitly to Section 3,
> >>since it contains the parenthetical comment "(or a work based on it,
> >>under Section 2)" in place of the exact phrase "work based on the
> >>Program" that was defined in Section 0. Don't worry about Sections 5
> >>and 6, which use the phrase "work based on the Program" unqualified,
> >>since there's at least one way to read them in which they would have
> >>the same meaning whether or not the "mere aggregation" exception
> >>applies.
> >
> >In essence, yes.
> >
> And yet you cannot see the flaw in your logic? Even if the English
> grammar were ultra-flexible, it's not (better yet -- it should not be)
> when applied to contracts and other legal texts. There, you MUST use the
> formal grammar, and you MUST read those terms under the rules of the
> formal grammar.
The sloppiness of MKE's construct, above doesn't mean that he
missed the point. That said: his use of "implicitly", "in place of',
"don't worry" and "same meaning" are non-factual.
> >I highly recommend you read circular 14, and pay particular
> >attention to the examples which use the phrase "based on".
> Could you please quote -- with a reasonable amount of context -- said
> examples, so those of us who do not have any access to search them can
> verify what you are saying?
First, could you please bring up http://google.com/search?q=circular+14 and
read the html version of that document which Google offers?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: