[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

From: Isaac
Subject: Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:37:20 -0500
User-agent: slrn/ (Linux)

On 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400, Bruce Lewis <> wrote:
> Isaac <> writes:
>> I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in
>> form is a pretty big stretch.  Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion
>> adapting requires making at least some change to fit.  Yet you've expressly
>> stated that the original software has not been modified.
> Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated.
> In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified
> when clothing is draped over it.  An artist might think differently.

I would find calling such draping "adapting" to be a stretch of both the
ordinary and the legal meaning of the work.  Using a statute as a clothing
rack is adopting but not adapting.  Now if instead you had to twist one of 
the statutes arms around so that draped clothing would not fall, you've
done some adapting.

I don't think draping clothing over a statute creates a derivative 

>> Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a
>> derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the
>> statute is going to support the argument.  I'd want to see some case law.
> I won't know either until I see relevant case law.  Alexander Terekhov
> seems to think he knows already.

I think AT is on fairly solid ground when it comes to what consitutes
a derivative work.  His opinion seems consistent with those game console
court decisions of the late 90s and early 2000s.  And the literal meaning
of the statute seems to support his position better than yours.

Where I think he's completely out to lunch is in his interpretation of
first sale.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]