Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Go to doctor, silly.
>
> HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476: 
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:H.R._Rep._No._94-1476 
>
> ----- 
> 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 
> [...] an unauthorized translation of a novel [i.e. derivative work] 
> could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an 
> anthology of poetry [i.e. compilation] could sue someone who 
> infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves 
> that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized.

Oh, good! You continue your unfortunate-for-you tendency to
point to documents which directly contradict your thesis.

First of all, let's point to a link where the whole document
can be read easily:
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476)>

Now, let's untwist and unspin. The first sentence you quote is
the beginning of a paragraph simply explaining the difference
between a compilation and a derivative work. The full text:

    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 only thing that this paragraph illustrates is that a statically
linked executable is a compilation and not a derivative work, as I
have repeatedly said.

Onward. The second sentence you quote is part of a paragraph describing
the difference in the copyright of a compilation or derivative work
when it contains an element which is unlawful as opposed to unauthorized,
the subject of 17 USC 103(a). In full:

    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 (p58) anthology, even though the infringer
    proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. Under
    this provision, copyright could be obtained as long as the use of
    the preexisting work was not “unlawful,” even though the consent of
    the copyright owner had not been obtained. For instance, the
    unauthorized reproduction of a work might be “lawful” under the
    doctrine of fair use or an applicable foreign law, and if so the work
    incorporating it could be copyrighted.

Incorporating a GPLed library into a statically linked executable is
unlawful without permission from the rights holder, as can be seen
from the examples in the quoted paragraph of what is unauthorized but
not unlawful; such permission is only granted if the work as a whole
is distributed under the GPL.