Re: denying rights?

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Work A + Work B = Work C (combination of two works) ==> derivtate work
> since C is based on A and B.  This is no compilation.

Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) 

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(I.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)

"When two or more preexisting works are combined to form a new work, in 
copyright law that work is called a “compilation” – “a work formed by 
the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that 
are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting 
work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” The 
copyright in the resulting overall computer program comprises the 
copyrights in the preexisting component computer programs and a new 
copyright in the compilation. But that compilation copyright is very 
limited.

[...]

Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library for 
its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take that 
position because the application program is “based on” the library 
because it was written to use the subroutines and other aspects of the 
library.

Such a position is misplaced. "

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
(Reciprocity and the GPL)

"I have already explained the fundamental difference in copyright law 
between a /collective work/ and a /derivative work/. You will recall 
generally that the former is a collection of independent works and the 
latter is a work based upon one or more preexisting works. A work 
containing another work is a /collective work/. A work based on another 
work is a /derivative work/. Merging those concepts in the GPL would 
leave no distinction between a derivative and collective work, an 
absurd result considering the importance of those two defined terms
in copyright law."

Note that the term compilation includes collective works.

regards,
alexander.