Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every > copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a > distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of > derivative works from the rights of a collective (anthology) work. I > have said it before, but I will repeat:
You aren't thinking about enough edge cases. For example, let's say I take a short story A. I have nine authors write nine variations of it and publish a collection of these ten works. The whole book is a derivative work of A. It is also a collective of A_i. > now let's say this combined kernel accepts as-is a BSD LKM for ppp, > p.ex. *and* that it's licensed GPL-compatible 2-clause-BSD/MIT/X. say > Linus includes this in its kernel tree. > > now we have: > > linux_v0p0ppp == linux_v0 + patch_0 + ppp ===> > THE ANTHOLOGY CALLED Linux Kernel == (C) Linus Torvalds > THE PARTS == some parts (C) Linus Torvalds, > other parts (C) Regents of USC, > and other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #0 This assumes that module required no adaptation to fit with the Linux kernel, and the kernel required no adaptation to fit with the module -- they just cleanly plugged into one another. This seems unlikely to me. > complicating a litlle bit more: Kernel Contributors #1, #2, and #3 > patch respectively the kernel, patch_0, and ppp: > > linux_v0p3ppp == linux_v0 + patch_0,1,2,3 + ppp ===> > THE ANTHOLOGY CALLED Linux Kernel == (C) Linus Torvalds > THE PARTS == some parts (C) Linus Torvalds [1], > other parts (C) Regents of USC [2], > other parts (C) Regents of USC + Kernel Contributor #3 [3], > other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #2 + > Kernel Contributor #0 [4], > and other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #1 [5] > > [1] the untouched kernel parts > [2] the (untouched) ppp parts > [3] the patched by patch_3 ppp parts > [4] the patched by patch_0 and patch_2 kernel parts > [5] the patched by patch_1 kernel parts > > Easy, huh? extrapolate for ten+ years of patching and aggregating and > you'll get where we are today. OK... but I am still unconvinced that any object like [2] exists. Code just isn't that modular. I specifically don't believe that the firmware blobs fit into that slot. Do you? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
