Re: Bye - Bye , open source derivative works litigation

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 2/10/2010 5:48 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > LMAO! Don't you think that the GPL is not the state and as such it just
> > can't grant any copyright irrespective of jointness under 17 USC 101
> 
> In the case of a GPLed work . . .

One *SINGLE* (consisting of a separate unique whole) project is not a
joint work although it produces a (single) (combined) "larger
program"???

"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single
program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program
and the plug-ins. "

"But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough,
exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis
to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. "

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

(The static linking "whole" aside for a moment, that is.)

Please elaborate, Hyman.

TIA!!!

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which
arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. "

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation"

Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane

--
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.)