John Cowan wrote: [...] > You can't compare property in physical things directly to its > copyright. If you replace the car by a detailed description of > it (#1), and incorporate into that a detailed description of the > gas pedal (#2) that has already been written, then #1 is indeed > a derivative work of #2.
I don't think so. Such aggregated work (technical specification) is a compilation, not a derivative work, AFAIK. Now, going back to software, http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html (see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations) Well, Lee Hollaar (see "treatise2.html") also wrote this: <quote source=ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf> Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any "integrity of the work" argument. The United States recognizes "moral rights" of attribution and integrity only for works of visual art in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 U.S.C. 106A and the definition of "work of visual art" in 17 U.S.C. 101.) A bookstore can replace the last chapter of a mystery novel without infringing its copyright, as long as they are not reprinting the other chapters but are simply removing the last chapter and replacing it with an alternative one, but must not pass the book off as the original. Having a copyright in a work does not give that copyright owner unlimited freedom in the terms he can impose. </quote> To me, the GPL does allow "reprinting" (that's section 1). So any "alternative" stuff can be added and distributed together with the original stuff. And, of course, the "alternative" added stuff doesn't need to be under the GPL as long as the added stuff is NOT a derivative work of the GPL'd thing (read: was prepared without copying any protected elements from the GPL'd thing [clean room] or simply doesn't contain them at all being a completely different [new] functional part of "a whole" work). www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html <quote> Q: When I incorporate a portion of a Program licensed under the CPL into my own proprietary product distributed in object code form, can I use a single license for the full product, in other words, covering the portion of the Program plus my own code? A: Yes. The object code for the product may be distributed under a single license as long as it references the CPL portion and complies, for that portion, with the terms of the CPL. [...] Q: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the Program, must I make the source code to my module available in accordance with the terms of the CPL? A: No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. </quote> regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3