Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > We are are addressing *distribution* of a derivative work "as a
> >  whole".
>
> We are addressing the exclusive rights of a copyright holder to 
> authorize how his work may be used. The creator of the combined 
> work has no permission to incorporate the GPLed work except as 
> given by the GPL, and therefore if he wishes to do so, he must 
> obey the GPL, and that will include distributing the work as a 
> whole under the GPL.

Why not just read the Copyright Act instead of making up your own
law ?

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

is independant of the distribution right.

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;

There are two independent copyrights in a derivative work "as a
whole":

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material.

Are you functionally incapable of understanding that *NEITHER*
author has an exclusive right to distribute a derivative work "as a
whole" ? It's a matter left to contract law -- not copyright law.

The two author's can agree in privity of contract to allow
distribution of the derivative work "as a whole". Violation of that
bilateral agreement is addressed through breach of contract and
*not* copyright law.