Viral licenses (was: wxWindows library...)

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Cowan wrote:
[...]
> You can't compare property in physical things directly to its
> copyright.  If you replace the car by a detailed description of 
> it (#1), and incorporate into that a detailed description of the 
> gas pedal (#2) that has already been written, then #1 is indeed 
> a derivative work of #2.

I don't think so. Such aggregated work (technical specification) 
is a compilation, not a derivative work, AFAIK. Now, going back 
to software,

http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
(see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)

Well, Lee Hollaar (see "treatise2.html") also wrote this:

<quote source=ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf>

Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by 
Microsoft may not violate copyright law, and certainly not 
because of any "integrity of the work" argument. The United 
States recognizes "moral rights" of attribution and integrity 
only for works of visual art in limited editions of 200 or 
fewer copies. (See 17 U.S.C. 106A and the definition of "work 
of visual art" in 17 U.S.C. 101.) A bookstore can replace the 
last chapter of a mystery novel without infringing its 
copyright, as long as they are not reprinting the other 
chapters but are simply removing the last chapter and 
replacing it with an alternative one, but must not pass the 
book off as the original. Having a copyright in a work does 
not give that copyright owner unlimited freedom in the terms 
he can impose.

</quote>

To me, the GPL does allow "reprinting" (that's section 1). 
So any "alternative" stuff can be added and distributed 
together with the original stuff.  And, of course, the 
"alternative" added stuff doesn't need to be under the GPL 
as long as the added stuff is NOT a derivative work of the 
GPL'd thing (read: was prepared without copying any 
protected elements from the GPL'd thing [clean room] or 
simply doesn't contain them at all being a completely 
different [new] functional part of "a whole" work).

www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html

<quote>

Q: When I incorporate a portion of a Program licensed under 
the CPL into my own proprietary product distributed in object 
code form, can I use a single license for the full product, 
in other words, covering the portion of the Program plus my 
own code? 

A: Yes. The object code for the product may be distributed 
under a single license as long as it references the CPL 
portion and complies, for that portion, with the terms of 
the CPL.

[...]

Q: If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under 
the CPL and distribute the object code of the module along 
with the rest of the Program, must I make the source code to 
my module available in accordance with the terms of the CPL?

A: No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the 
Program.

</quote>

regards,
alexander.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3