Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Brian Gough wrote:
> [...]
> > the GPL is well tested
> 
> By whom (and which interpretation)?

By the courts, and the FSF interpretation has not been overturned
anywhere.

> Attempts to extend the scope of share-alike reciprocation provision
> to the entire compilations (including some other preexisting and
> therefore necessarily nonderivative works) constitute misuse of the
> copyright.

No, they don't, since they are not covered by copyright.  The GPL
grants _additional_ rights.  Those can be restricted to persons
wearing a red cardboard nose if the licence issuer so desires.  Misuse
of copyright is trying to restrict the _natural_ rights _guaranteed_
to you by copyright if you acquire a copy.  Things like prohibiting
benchmarking and decompilation for making something run and so on.

> Feel free to license any rights that the statute would otherwise
> have reserved to you by default, but remember that there's NO
> exclusive right to prepare collective works and that the first sale
> doctrine applies to each and every lawful copy.

Sure.  To each lawful copy obtained under copyright rules.  You can
prepare a collective work with GNU software all you want to (copyright
gives you the right), but you may not redistribute copies of that
without explicit permission.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum