Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>> Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> >> A ''compilation'' is a work formed by the collection and
>> >> assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are
>> >> selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the
>> >> resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of
>> >> authorship. The term ''compilation'' includes collective
>> >> works.
>> >
>> > That would seem to fit much better than derivative work, yes.
>> > However I do wonder whether the combination of host and plugin
>> > constitutes an original work of authorship? There seems to
>> > be little creativity involved.
>>
>> Sure there is -- but it's performed by the person who wrote the
>> plugin, as he sculpts the interface to fit to the host, and to provide
>> useful functionality to it -- not merely by itself.
>
> Yes, the plugin most definitely is an original, creative work.
> It does not seem to qualify under the definition of "compilation"
> quoted by Anthony above, though.
>
> If I take an existing host program and an existing plugin,
> configure the host to automatically load the plugin, and
> then bundle both into a single package, have I created such
> a "compilation"?
It doesn't matter, since you are almost certainly not the copyright
holder: the plugin author would have created that package much
earlier. You're not doing anything creative, it's true -- just
following his implied instructions.
> The package is the result of collection and
> assembling of two preexisting materials. However, what is the
> reason for qualifying the resulting work as an original work
> of authorship? The definition seems to suggest that the
> _compilation_ must be original, not its parts.
I think I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not convinced I entirely
undersstand where you're going with this.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
