Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()

[Batist Paklons <batist@gmail.com>]

On 10/05/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >At minimum, there must be some modified form of some of
> > >the creative content of the Program in a derivative
> > >work, or it's no a derivative work under copyright law.
> > >
> > Where did you get this idea?
> 
> This idea pervades the copyright system.  For example, 17 USC 102:
> 
>    The historic expansion of copyright has also applied to forms of expression
>    which, although in existence for generations or centuries, have
> only gradually
>    come to be recognized as creative and worthy of protection.
> 
> For example, the berne convention says, in Article 2:
> 
>    (5) Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and
>    anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their
>    contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such,
>    without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of
>    such collections.
> 
> It's very clear that what copyright is protecting is not the symbols which
> comprise a document but the creative content that they represent.

This could be different in common law copyright, but the idea in
authorship (droit d'auteur) is not that creativity grants protection,
but originality. The question to be answered is "does the work bear
the mark of the author?" The question whether or not a work has
creative content in the first place is not being asked. This stems
from a deeper prerequisite of copyright, i.e. that the work must be
tangible. Authorshiprights indeed protects the symbols, not the
creative content. It is only in its tangible form that it can receive
protection, mere ideas, however creative they may be. Copyright
protection only protects the expression.

In continental law it is very clear that you're mistaken on this
point. You are right though in a meta-legal context, the copyright
given on the symbols is to ensure legal protection for creativity, but
creativity in the sense of intellectual labour, not artistic
creativity.

Kind regards
Batist