Re: GPL traitor !

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > You are wrong: a binary is just a container object that contains
> > translated versions from different works.
> 
> Yes. That's known as a collective work, and requires permission
> from the copyright holders of the components in order to be created
> and copied.

Hyman, to begin with, you misunderstand what is a collective work as far
as copyright is concerned. Imagine a compilation (the term compilation
includes collective works, see 17 USC 101) consisting from works A1,
A2... An. The copyright in the compilation covers only the *selection*
of its components and doesn't cover any expression from the components.

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476:

-----
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 (section 7 of former title 17), 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-----

In Wallace v. FSF, the plaintiff claimed that the GPL covers collective
works as you suggest... and professional lawyers hired to defend the
FSF's ass vehemently disagreed:

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License." 

Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an
attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the
contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930,
933 (7th Cir. 2005)

...

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Curtis W. McCauley
Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)

Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software
Foundation, Inc.

ICE MILLER
One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002
317.236.2100"

Larry Rosen and other lawyers also claim that the GPL doesn't cover
collective works as you suggest.

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf 

And don't miss:

"... raise significant issues under the doctrine of copyright misuse, 
particularly, if it were interpreted to cover more than derivative works 
as defined by the Copyright Act. "

regards,
alexander.

-- 
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.)