Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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.
The original issue, as far as I understood is, was whether it is allowed to bundle a GPL-licensed plugin with a host program under a GPL-incompatible license. Or actually, a host that also uses a second plugin which is under a GPL-incompatible license, but that shouldn't make a difference. The host and the plugin can obviously be distributed separately as they are original works created by different people. But can someone take them, put them together into a single package and distribute the result? Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/