The Copyright Act preempts the GPL

[John Cowan]

Peter Fairbrother scripsit:

> Yes. In a derivative work, the second author has the right to make copies of
> his contribution to the derivative work, but he has no right at all to make
> copies of the whole derivative work.

[analogous points snipped]

You sound like you are describing a collective rather than a derivative
work.

> He also has no rights in the derivative work as a whole - such rights don't
> exist. There is no copyright in the work as a whole, only seperate
> copyrights in the pre-existing work, and in the added work.

This directly contravenes the text of the statute.  The copyright owner
of a derivative work is a copyright owner with all the rights of a
copyright owner, except that he cannot prevent the creation of other
works derivative of the original work but not based on his contribution.

> Note that copyright only subsists in _original_ works, and not in
> _derivative_ works. A derivative work does not per se have any associated
> copyright - though the parts of it may have associated copyright.

A derivative work is an original work, except insofar as it is derivative.
"Original" here is clearly opposed to "unoriginal".

IANAL, TINLA.

-- 
If you understand,                      John Cowan
   things are just as they are;         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
if you do not understand,               http://www.reutershealth.com
   things are just as they are.         jcowan at reutershealth.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3