Humberto Massa writes: > Brazilian copyright law distinguishes between derivative works, > compilation works (in which the organization/selection/disposition of > the contents *is* an intellectual creation on its own), and collective > works (where you just select a load of works and bundle them > together). Does not USC 17?
It makes the same distinctions, with a note that collective works include compilation works. >> -- Article 4(b), Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection >> of computer programs >> >> The compiled kernel is almost certainly a derivative of the firmware >> included in it. A good lawyer might be able to get you out of this. > > This, I cannot accept. Mere aggregation does not create a derivative > work: a derivative work is a transformation of something in something > else. The *aggregation* of the works can be a copyrightable work > (compilation) or not (collective). In both cases, in BR copyright law, > you have to respect the licenses of the parts to redistribute; in the > case of compilation, you have to respect the license of the work as a > whole, too. The GPL is clear about what you must do with respect to a derivative work of a covered Program, but it also discusses collective works in section 2: one mention tries to limit collective works and the other allows certain collective works. At least under US law, including the Program in a collective work would be an exclusive right reserved to the copyright holder, since copying the collection would involve copying the Program or a derivative of it. Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I believe it goes back to the argument whether the "mere aggregation" clause applies. Michael
