Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [... 17 USC 201(c) ...]
> That section of the copyright act is utterly irrelevant in the GPL
> context, silly.
> http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/62357178_2.html

The article you quoted is utterly irrelevant in the GPL context,
while 17 USC 201 is completely relevant.
    <http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/201.html>
    Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work
    is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole,
    and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the
    absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any
    rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work
    is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing
    and distributing the contribution as part of that particular
    collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any
    later collective work in the same series.

It could not be clearer from this law that the preparer of a
collective work must have permission from the copyright holders
of the work's elements to include them, and that such permission
must be acquired separately for each collective work. Since this
is the fortunate condition met by a statically linked work which
has GPLed components, the GPL works exactly as intended by its
creators in this case.