Subject: RE: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:49:40 -0700

> > Huh? The definitions of "collective work" [1] and "compilation" [2],
> > while different in 17 U.S.C 101, are pretty similar.
> 
Matthew Flaschen asked:
> But neither covers the actual code in the compilation/collective, right?

I don't understand your question either. Do you mean this:

17 USC 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.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft
> Permissive License
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Rick Moen wrote:
> >> As Matt points out, you have fundamentally misunderstood the notion of
> >> compilation copyright, and apparently confused it with that of
> >> collective works.
> >
> > Huh? The definitions of "collective work" [1] and "compilation" [2],
> while
> > different in 17 U.S.C 101, are pretty similar.
> 
> But neither covers the actual code in the compilation/collective, right?
> 
> Matt Flaschen