@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
law following the Geneva convention *does* such a distinction.
I did not say that there was no distinction.
I did say that there was no dichotomy.
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek) When GPL#0 says
"derivative works under copyright law", it's excluding: (under BR
copyright laws) originary works, collective works, anthology/compilation
works. It's saying "only those defined as derivative under copyright
law, which /in/ /casu/ would be "those works that are an intellectual
creation on their own, but result from a transformation of another
work." (law 9610/98).
So, there really is a dichotomy. Derivative works and Anthology works
are separated in their birth. If you want both, you *must* say
"derivative works of the program *and* anthology works containing the
program". You can't (in the realm of the GPL) even say "works based on
the program", because you defined this in section #0 as begin
"derivative works". /solamente/.
As I showed you in the last e-mail, the Linux kernel is an anthology
works, where the individual works have an intrincated graph of
derivation (like, as factually incorrect examples: ext2 being derived on
VFS [or is it /vice-versa/??], both being derived on the VM code, and so
on and on and on). The individual works are *each* and *every* patch
that entered the kernel tree in the last eleven years.
--
br,M
