On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:36:45PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >If the GPL allows you to create a derivative work which includes a > >GPL-protected product or parts of it, *you* own the copyright for the > >derivative work *as a whole*, > > > Technically true, but apparently not in the way you interpret it. > > >even though the constituent parts taken from > >other works retain their respective copyrights. > > > No, they are also copyright holders on the entire new work.
Come again? You, the owner of the original work, are definitely not a copyright holder on the whole of my derivative work. > In other > words, the entire derived work is new work, for which you hold > copyright. Even if entire sections were taken verbatim from my work, you > hold copyright for them. That much is true. This last bit actually appears to be not true, at least in American copyright law; cf. Title 17, Section 103 (b): The copyright in a compilation or derivative work ***extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work ***, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material I read the part delimited by asterisks as saying that I have copyright on the whole of my derivative work in which your parts were used, but I cannot be said to hold copyright on your parts in this work. > However, I do not seize to hold copyright for those very same sections > as well. It therefor follows that you cannot distribute it unless you > get my consent, I do not see how that follows. Under your interpretation, if I write a screenplay based on your novel, I must get separate permissions from you to, first, actually write the screenplay (to create the derivative work), and, second, to distribute the screenplay. This doesn't seem to match reality, where the important point is to get you to authorise my creation of the screenplay - which will probably happen under the appropriate contract or license restricting what I can do with it and how I would share hypothetical profits with you. Same thing with translation - I must get your authorisation to translate your book into a different language, but not, it seems to me, a license from you to distribute translated copies. Can you point at some evidence that I need both? [for evidence that I need your permission to even create the derivate work, without actually distributing it, see e.g. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf , section "WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?" ] However, even assuming that you're right on this point -- > which is not given for non-GPL redistribution. This is not true, it's not what the GPL says. The GPL is very clear on what I must do if I want to redistribute your work. There're different sets of conditions for three cases: 1) if I distribute it in source form unchanged; 2) if I distribute it as a part of a derivate work; 3) either of the preceding cases, but in binary/object form only. None of those conditions say that I cannot distribute your work under a non-GPL license. All it says in this regard is that I must make the derivative work available under the GPL to all third parties. So if I, first, make the whole of my derivative work available for download on my website, under the terms of the GPL; and, second, honor the other conditions on distribution by including the appropriate notices, copies of GPL, written offers to provide the source if I don't include it, etc. etc., then the GPL allows me to distribute your work. It doesn't restrict me to distributing it under the GPL exclusively. -- avva "There's nothing simply good, nor ill alone" -- John Donne ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
