Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > Rjack wrote: >> The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation >> makes it eligible for copyright.
> "Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized > programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which > should have been obvious from the context. ISTM that a lot of the nonsense emanating from this newsgroup is due to some people getting confused between the different meanings of the words "compilation" and "linking", and possibly others. If a bit of a copyright act talks about a "compilation", meaning a work consisting of a collection, rearrangement, and organisation of previously existing works, it is dumbness of high order to think that this bit of act applies to a "compilation" which is an object code file or the process of making one. It wouldn't be clever, either, to think that it applied to the "compilation" (i.e. the composing of) a crossword puzzle. It is just as dumb to believe that arguments about "linking", the use of hyperlinks in web pages, have validity to "linking", the process of fusing object code files into a tightly integrated whole. Thankfully, judges are perspicacious enough to understand these differences. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
