Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> In article <4649BC4F.83E77D8@web.de>,
> Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> [presumably court opinions about derivative works - I have no intention
> of reading them]
> 
> So what wording woud you suggest authors use in their licences if they
> wish to prevent their work from being used in this way?  

What do you mean?

> Or do you think authors should be required to allow it?

Just in case... HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476: 

-----
Between them the terms ''compilations'' and ''derivative works'' 
which are defined in section 101 comprehend every copyrightable 
work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There 
is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically 
represent different concepts. A ''compilation'' results from a 
process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging 
previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether 
the individual items in the material have been or ever could have 
been subject to copyright [...] an unauthorized translation of a 
novel [i.e. derivative work] could not be copyrighted at all, but 
the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry [i.e. compilation] 
could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though 
the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was 
unauthorized. 
-----

It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, 
compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit.

regards,
alexander.