Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 3:18 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > The author of this seems not to realize that there is no > right to copy and distribute works as part of a collective > work without the authorization of the rights holders of > the components. Given that incorrect starting assumption, > it is no wonder that error piles upon error.
Let the author http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm know about his "error piles upon error". <chuckles> > > There is no difficulty within copyright law for a rights > holder to say that "you may make and distribute standalone > copies provided you meet condition one, and you may make > and distribute copies of a collective work incorporating > the covered work provided you meet condition two". http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf "Courts that have embraced the doctrine of copyright misuse192 initially adopted a rationale developed in the patent context.193 The doctrine of patent misuse penalizes patent holders who try to expand their limited legal monopoly over the patented invention beyond the four corners of the patent and thus upset the balance that patent law has struck between protection and public access.194 In patent cases, courts have found a number of licensing practices to be abusive, including royalty requirements for components, territories, or time periods outside the scope of the patent grant, covenants not to deal in competing products, and package licensing.195 A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking to control external activities and subject matternamely, the use of independent programs. Depending on the context, such a clause could, in effect, constitute a prohibition on using competing products. In any event, such a clause would limit a licensees right to create compilations and non-creative combinationsrights that the Copyright Act declares to be free, in contrast to the right to prepare derivative works.196 Thus, such a copyright owner would seem to run a significant risk that a court would classify such a clause as copyright misuse with the dramatic result that the copyright owner would be denied copyright protection even against outright piracy. A licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating derivative works, as the term is defined by statute and through combinations or otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of its statutory rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse. The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is internationally recognized.197" regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss