> > What is specific point of law on which we disagree? ... > The part where you stated: > > > So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but > > some of the individual elements of it do not. > > Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull together, I don't > think you understand what a copyright in a collective work consists > of, or what it applies to and what it does not apply to.
This isn't a point of law, this is a statement of mine. If I try to translate my statement into a point of law, I'd say that the point of law is something like this: For derivative works where pre-existing material is covered by copyright (where it's lawful for the copyright on the derivative work to extend to the pre-existing material), the existence of a copyright on the derivative work does not imply any exclusive right to the preexisting material. Are you saying that this is the point on which we disagree? -- Raul
