On 5/10/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > >This is part of the definition. You cut it off before the end of the > >sentence.
> This is disputed. You claim you did not cut it off before the end of the sentence? > And you know that. I have already presented a lot of > arguments of why can't the second part of this phrase be a re-statement. > You have not, insofar, presented any contrary arguments. I'll agree that "restatement" might be the wrong way of expressing this idea. Arguments that "that is to say" does not introduce a restatement are not arguments that the definition is complete without that clause. For the moment, I'm going to simply point out that wordnet indicates that "that is to say" means basically the same thing as "namely", and that a google define: search on that phrase points me at wordnet. > >At minimum, there must be some modified form of some of > >the creative content of the Program in a derivative > >work, or it's no a derivative work under copyright law. > > > Where did you get this idea? This idea pervades the copyright system. For example, 17 USC 102: The historic expansion of copyright has also applied to forms of expression which, although in existence for generations or centuries, have only gradually come to be recognized as creative and worthy of protection. For example, the berne convention says, in Article 2: (5) Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopaedias and anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such, without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of such collections. It's very clear that what copyright is protecting is not the symbols which comprise a document but the creative content that they represent. > >But maybe you have some counter example? > > > Yes. Tell me: which (modified?) part of (copyrightable) content from > "Action Comics #1" is present in "Smallville: Pilot"? These are concrete > examples of original and derivative works. I've not studied these, but they're both superman stories, right? Are you saying that these did not share creative content? (Even if that were the case, the copyright on other issues of Action Comics is likely significant.) > If you want to attain yourself to computer programs, try to find > any (copyrightable) code in the linux process scheduler, as > in version 2.6.11, that was in linux 0.01 process scheduler. > A hint: a lot of transformations can erase any trace of the > original, without breaking the derivation link. Sure, among other things you've got Linus being responsible for both and having supervised the intermediate versions (which had stronger creative ties to each other). And, of course, the copyright is on the kernel as a whole -- sections taken in isolation are copyrighted as a part of the whole. > >> b) there are works that contain the Program, verbatim or > >> with modifications and/or translated into another languages > >> that are NOT derivative works of the Program. > >Copyright law does not restrict those cases, so you do > >not need the GPL to grant you license in those cases. > Yes, copyright law does restrict those cases. Yes, you need the grant > the GPL gives you in the sections 1, associated with 2, para 3, 5, and > 10 to distribute works that contain the Program. I'm sorry, I didn't express the idea well enough. My point was that copyright law does not place additional restrictions on your distribution of the GPLed program which are specific to these collective works which are not being protected as intellectual creations. And, if you allow the full definition of a "work based on the Program" from section 0 of the GPL to apply, it's clear that when these collective works are being protected as intellectual creations that you're talking about a "work based on the Program" and so can be granted license by the GPL. -- Raul
