compilation copyright

Clarification: Pugs isn't moving away from Artistic 2 licensing and
compilation copyright has nothing to do with licensing compatibility.
There was a good bit of confusion there for a few days, but we sorted
it out.
This isn't specific to the Artistic License (in any version), it's a
general legal principle. You can't give away rights you don't have. So:

1) You can include a free software package in another free software
package with the same license.

2) You can include a free software package in another free software
package with a more restrictive license (because you're giving away
fewer rights than they gave you).

3) You can't include a free software package in another free software
package with a less restrictive license (because you would be giving
away rights that they never gave you).


Artistic 2 is less restrictive than LGPL, so that particular
combination falls under 3. But, Artistic 2 code can link to LGPL
code, which is all you need in most cases.

Allison

First off, a little explanation. As the Copyright Act explains in
Section 103(b), a copyright in a compilation extends only to the
compilation itself, as distinguished from the preexisting material
collected and integrated in the compilation, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in a
compilation is independent of, and does not affect the scope,
duration, ownership, or existence of, any copyright in the
preexisting material.

The owner of a compilation copyright has the same rights with respect
to the compilation as the owner of the copyright in an individual
work has in the individual work, which are the exclusive rights to
reproduction, making derivative works, distribution, performance, and
display.
Yes. Like all copyrights, it comes into existence when the work is
created and fixed in a tangible medium, such as computer memory.
It’s the compilation -- the work that results from the collection and
integration of the individual contributions -- that’s distributed by
TPF and other open source projects. Without the compilation
copyright, anyone who wanted to use or redistribute Perl (for
example) would have to get the permission of everyone who has ever
contributed to Perl. Pretty inconvenient, and not something most
users would ever do, or be able to do.
Copyright law isn't really about liability, so the fact that TPF owns
the compilation copyright does not have a direct effect on the
contributors legal liability.

The Artistic License 2 in Section 14 (and Section 10 of AL1) puts
users on notice that liability and warranties have been disclaimed
with respect to the Package by the contributors and the copyright
holder. Since a contributor only grants TPF a nonexclusive license,
a contributor is free to also distribute their contributions some way
-- other than under the Artistic License -- without a disclaimer of
warranty or liability.
They are recognized under the Berne Convention, the primary
international agreement on copyright law <http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/
Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works>.
Including the U.S., approximately 160 countries have signed one or
another version of the Berne Convention.

Allison