Re: GNU licenses

[alexander . terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels schrieb:

> On 4 Sep 2006 17:19:44 -0700
> alexander.terekhov@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on
> > constituent works.
>
> But you cannot create the compilation without the approval of the
> copyright holders of each of the constituent works.

Approval for what? There's no exclusive right to prepare/make
compilations. See contu. Employing copyrighted constituents in
a compilation without permission doesn't have an effect on compilation
copyright. Employing copyrighted material in derivative works (17 USC
117 adaptations aside for a moment) "invalidates" infringers copyright
in derivative work.

> The compilation
> then is protected by copyright - but only to the extent that someone
> else can not put together the same compilation - i.e. it's the creative
> act of preparing the compilation that is protected.

That's what a compilation copyright is.

>
> In essence, if you place a copy of your wholly original work and say,
> an unmodified copy of GCC together on a CD with some of your drivel,
> this is a compilation. To comply with the GPL, you'll have to include
> the source to GCC.

I doubt such a minuscule selection of just two entities would result in
any compilation copyright. It's simply uncopyrightable aggregation.

>
> Now imagine that you lifted the source code to the GCC 'C' parser from
> GCC, and used that in your "MY-C" compiler, then "MY-C" is no longer a
> compilation.

It has the same legal status regarding copyright as a separate front-
end "program" (as in POSIX process producing some intermediate
stage file) plus another separate compiler back-end "program"
(consuming that intermediate stage file and producing object code
or whatnot).

There's no difference whatsoever in your "In essence" and "Now imagine"
cases regarding derivative works (lack thereof).

regards,
alexander.