On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> If it were a compilation, that would be fine. But in many cases -- > >> including this one, I think -- it's not. We have a license to the > >> original work from the original author, and to the derivative work > >> from the upstream. But the original author also has a copyright on > >> the derivative work, and we have no license to it from him. > > > > The original author has a copyright on his work that is included in > > the derivative work, not a copyright on the derivative work itself. > > I believe you are mistaken about this. The original author has a > copyright which allows him to control the production and > distribution of derivative works. Any grants he makes regarding the > original work are irrelevant to the derivative works.
That depends what grants are made regarding the original work. For example, the GPL (a grant regarding the original work) grants specific rights regarding derivative works. What I was attempting to indicate is that the protection on the derivative work comes from the presence of copyrighted material from (or derived from) the original work within the derivative work. That is, the copyrightable part of the derivative work not stemming from the original work is owned by the person making the derivative work, not the copyright holder of the original work. Don Armstrong -- I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
