Re: GPL and other licences

[Alexander Terekhov]

[... "derived work" (i.e. "derivative work" under GNU law) ...]

I suppose that id "lrosen" belongs to http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm.

Nice to see both Hollaar and Rosen commenting GNU legal nonsense 
version three. (Note that the GPLv2 contains the same GNU definition of 
"derivative work".) 

-----
comment 637: Derivative works
Regarding the text: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a
portion of it, either modified or unmodified.
In section: gpl3.definitions.p0.s2
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST
comments:

    The statement beginning "that is to say..." is not an accurate
description of "derivative works" under US copyright law. If you want
the copyleft provisions of GPLv3 to apply to "collective works" then you
should say so explicitly, rather than use language reminiscent of the
definition of collective works when trying to describe derivative works.
The current draft, in this respect, is both ambiguous and potentially
very misleading. See 17 USC 101.
    noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:39:41 EST 


comment 635: Derivative works
Regarding the text:
In section: login
Submitted by: lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST
comments:

    The "that is to say..." provision following the colon in section 0.A
is not a correct summary of what a derivative work is under copyright
law. See 17 USC 101 ["Definitions"]. In fact, it is an inaccurate way of
describing derivative works. This makes the license ambiguous and
potentially unenforceable in some circumstances. If you wish the reach
of the GPL copyleft provision to include collective works, say so
explicitly.
    noted by lrosen on 2006-01-23 18:13:55 EST 
-----

AFAICS the GPLv3 is quite explicit in regards of manifesting blatant
misuse of copyright by trying to extract rights to non-derivatives (see
the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source Code).

regards,
alexander.