Scope of copyright on derivative works

[Alexander Terekhov]

Let's leave compilations aside for a moment and talk about
modifications (derivative works). Okay?

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.pdf
(2.2 Adding GPL'd modifications to permissive-licensed files)

On 9/28/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> [Subject changed. Was "For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License"]
>
> Alexander Terakhov keeps repeating in off-topic email:
> > All
> > preexisting protected elements fall under the BSD. Straightforward way
> > to convey that fact is to keep the BSD on top and indent the GPL below
> > it with a notice that only portion(s) of this file are under the GPL,
> > not file/work "as a whole" ("the totality").
>
> You misunderstand. You are demanding that we see only the pieces of a
> collective/derivative work and not its expressive whole, which isn't
> correct.

I'm not demanding that. Preexisting elements of "its expressive whole"
remain under the BSD license. New expressive elements in modifications
(in the case of derivative work) fall under the GPL. Straightforward
way to convey that fact is to keep original BSD license on top and
indent the GPL below it with a notice that only modifications to this
file are under the GPL. The totality of copyright on derivative work
"as a whole" subsists of both copyrights (covering preexisting + new
elements).

/*
* Copyright (c) YEARS_LIST, Permissive Contributor1 <contrib1 at example.net>
* Copyright (c) YEARS_LIST, Permissive Contributor2 <contrib2 at example.net>
*
* [... BSDL terms ...]
*
*    Copyright (c) 2007 GPL Developer Who Made Changes <gpl at example.org>
*
*    This file incorporates modifications covered by the GPL... [blah blah]
*/

regards,
alexander.

--
"PJ points out that lawyers seem to have difficulty understanding the
GPL. My main concern with GPLv3 is that - unlike v2 - non-lawyers can't
understand it either."
                             -- Anonymous Groklaw Visitor