Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 17:15 Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Certainly the owner of a collective or derivative work gets > �to exercise the right to control� those works, and the owner > of each contribution gets �to exercise the right to control� > his or her contribution. (17 U.S.C. � 103[b].) > > so he's certainly not as wrong as you are. I shouldn't be > surprised - as always, the things you quote contradict your > thesis. You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_Revision_(House_Report_No._94-1476) ----- Section 103 complements section 102: A compilation or derivative work is copyrightable if it represents an �original work of authorship� and falls within one or more of the categories listed in section 102. Read together, the two sections make plain that the criteria of copyrightable subject matter stated in section 102 apply with full force to works that are entirely original and to those containing preexisting material. Section 103(b) is also intended to define, more sharply and clearly than does section 7 of the present law, the important interrelationship and correlation between protection of preexisting and of �new� material in a particular work. The most important point here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright in a �new version� covers only the material added by the later author, and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. Between them the terms �compilations� and �derivative works� which are defined in section 101, comprehend every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material or data of any kind. There is necessarily some overlapping between the two, but they basically represent different concepts. A �compilation� results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright. A �derivative work,� on the other hand, requires a process of recasting, transforming, or adapting �one or more preexisting works�; the �preexisting work� must come within the general subject matter of copyright set forth in section 102, regardless of whether it is or was ever copyrighted. The second part of the sentence that makes up section 103(a) deals with the status of a compilation or derivative work unlawfully employing preexisting copyrighted material. In providing that protection does not extend to �any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully,� the bill prevents an infringer from benefiting, through copyright protection, from committing an unlawful act, but preserves protection for those parts of the work that do not employ the preexisting work. Thus, an unauthorized translation of a novel could not be copyrighted at all, but the owner of copyright in an anthology of poetry could sue someone who infringed the whole anthology, even though the infringer proves that publication of one of the poems was unauthorized. ----- It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. Got it now, silly Hyman? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.)
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 17:28 Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-201P.ZS> You're a bit confused as usual, Hyman. http://www.ivanhoffman.com/tasini.html "The United States Supreme Court ruled that print publishers such as newspapers and magazines may not use material in online databases to which they had previously obtained only print rights from independent contractor creators. The Court�s ruling establishes that such online and electronic uses are separate uses from that of print. Publishers had argued that they had these rights under the �collective works� section of the United States Copyright Act. That section provides in part: � 201. Ownership of copyright (c) Contributions to Collective Works.-Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. The publishers' argument was that the online uses within an electronic database were a �revision of that collective work,� meaning a revision of the original print publication. This was the argument rejected by the Court saying that the use within a database was a separate use, not contemplated by the foregoing provisions. The Court stated: In accord with Congress prescription, a publishing company could reprint a contribution from one issue in a later issue of its magazine, and could reprint an article from a 1980 edition of an encyclopedia in a 1990 revision of it; the publisher could not revise the contribution itself or include it in a new anthology or an entirely different magazine or other collective work. The Contractual Significance The issue arose because the contracts by which such print rights were acquired were either silent on the issue of �electronic rights� or were vague and uncertain. I have written about this issue in several other articles that you should read on my site. See �Electronic Issues in Publishing Contracts,� �Electronic Publishing and the Potential Loss of First Serial Rights� and �Digital Rights Management.� If you are a publisher or have otherwise acquired rights to materials and your contract is more than just a few years old, it may be deficient either because it does not speak to or is vague in defining the �electronic rights� that you need. You should examine your contracts in this regard and if necessary, have those contracts updated for current and future use. � 2001 Ivan Hoffman **************** This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. You should consult with an attorney familiar with the issues and the laws. **************** No portion of this article may be copied, retransmitted, reposted, duplicated or otherwise used without the express written approval of the author. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR MORE INFORMATION: Where Next? Ivan Hoffman Attorney At Law || More Helpful Articles For Writers and Publishers|| More Internet and Electronic Rights Articles||More Articles for Web Site Designers and Site Owners || Home" regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.)
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 18:51 On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, > compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. > Got it now? There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy and distribute the arrangement with the works included without permission of the owners of the rights in the included works. You are about as confused as anyone I have ever seen. It's a good thing you hold no position of responsibility where your incorrect knowledge of copyright law could cause harm.
From: David Kastrup on 26 Mar 2010 03:46 Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > On 3/25/2010 2:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Hyman Rosen<hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: >> >>> On 3/25/2010 1:49 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: >>>> it cannot possibly be correct under copyright law for the >>>> rights to a work to change by the creation of a separate >>>> work after the original work has been created! >>> >>> Well, actually, let me take this part back. >> >> What changes is not the rights to the copyrightable work (those remain >> with the author), but whether it legally constitutes an integral part of >> a larger whole or not. When it can be usefully combined with different >> other parts, this is definitely not the case. > > No, that's not it at all. I was wrong because the author > of a license can put in any conditions he wants, The whole point of the GPL as a license rather than a contract is extending the rights a user will normally have, so that agreement to the license can be assumed without prejudicing the software user. So the GPL takes care not to go further than copyright does. > But permission to copy and distribute a library cannot > affect the right to copy and distribute a separate work > when that work does not contain the library. The courts ultimately determine the meaning of "separate" and "contain". -- David Kastrup
From: Alexander Terekhov on 26 Mar 2010 05:23
Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, > > compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. > > Got it now? > > There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns > the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy > and distribute the arrangement with the works included without > permission of the owners of the rights in the included works. Go tell Red Hat and Novell that they are blatantly violating the GPL, silly Hyman. Yeah, I know that you're "insufficiently motivated"... right? http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX� AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is a collective work of Novell" Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)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 <hyrosen(a)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.) |