Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
>      Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets
>      “to exercise the right to control” those works, and the owner
>      of each contribution gets “to exercise the right to control”
>      his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. § 103[b].)
> 
> so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be
> surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your
> thesis.

You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476)

-----
Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is
copyrightable if it represents an “original work of authorship” and
falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read
together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable
subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that
are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material.
Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than
does section 7 of the present law, the important interrelationship and
correlation between protection of preexisting and of “new” material in a
particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly
misunderstood today: copyright in a “new version” covers only the
material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the
other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting
material.

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. A “derivative work,”
on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or
adapting “one or more preexisting works”; the “preexisting work” must
come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section
102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted.

The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with
the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing
preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not
extend to “any part of the work in which such material has been used
unlawfully,” the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through
copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves
protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the
preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not
be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of
poetry 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.

Got it now, silly Hyman?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)