Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >17 USC 101: "A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more
> >preexisting works"
> >how much plainer do you need this t
> >
> >I'm asserting that copyrightable collective works are derivatives
> >of the contained works. Can you show me some legal basis
> >to believe otherwise?
> Could you quote 17 USC 101 in full, please, ?
17 USC 101 is about 17K, and you can find it trivially using google (search for
17 USC 101). However, here is that definition of derivative works:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization,
motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
abridgment, condensation,
or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.
A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a
"derivative work".
> >What text, specifically, are you referring to? I've read the Berne
> >Convention and 17 USC 101, and I don't see any statement there
> >that these are disjoint concepts. They are different concepts, but
> >that's not the same thing as disjoint. I can see that you've stated
> >that these two concepts are disjoint, but I don't see any legal
> >reasons for believing that that is the case.
> At least in Brazilian Law and hermeneutics, distinct concepts that are
> separated in an enumeration are considered to be disjoint concepts in
> principle. IOW: you can modify the work A, creating the derivative work
> B, and then compile B in an anthology with C. C is not a derivative work
> of A, B is. C is an anthology work containing B and C. C is not a
> derivative work of B nor of C. That is everything I have to say about
> Brazilian statute.
I think where you're saying "disjoing concepts" you should be saying
"different concepts". If the concepts are disjoint, then these concepts
cannot overlap. If they are disjoint you can have A apply, you can have B
apply, or you can have C apply, but there can be no cases where any
combination of these clauses apply.
> It's a question of having case law when we talk about 17USC (and I don't
> have any access to it right now), but in case of Brazilian Law (that is
> not common law) it's a quite simple question of hermeneutics.
The only reason copyright applies to computer programs in a
legally significant fashion is through the concept of derivative works.
Computers operate by transforming the representation of a program
from one state to another. If you claim that these translations are not
derivatives of the original,and that no creative work went into the
translation, then you're claiming that they're not copyrighted works,
and thus not subject to copyright protections.
--
Raul
Reply to: