🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> ...  A copyright is a temporary, exclusive
                                   ^^^^^^^^^
>legal right, which entitles its owner to produce, publish, and sell
>copies of his original work.  As such, copyright attaches to the work,
>and not to any specific copy thereof.   ...

  I think that this statement is at the heart of the disagreement.
It isn't clear to me that copyright is "exclusive", but the example
I have in mind isn't exactly relevant to the software issue.  Still
it is a copyright example:

  Author A writes a poem and owns the copyright.  Editor B includes
the poem (by permission, and with copyright notice attached) in a
collection of poetry and owns a copyright on the book as a 
collection.  Performer C buys a copy of the book and wants to
read the poem as a paid performance.  C must get permission from
both A and B.  Therefore the poem is "covered" by two copyrights
simultaneously.  However if C obtains a copy of the poem which
was published other than in the book, then B's permission is not
necessary.  In this case there can be different copies of the
poem which are treated differently with respect to needed
permission(s) and possibly with respect to license terms.

  Am I representing the poem copyright situation correctly?

  Is this analogous to any part of the FSF license question?

--henry schaffer