[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: GPL 2(b) HUH? |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:10:48 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) |
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then wrote a
completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work
No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a
transformation of another work which retains its original purpose -
turning a short story into a movie script, or translating into a
different language. See the Harry Potter case, where the judge said
that turning narratives into a reference text, even with massive
copying from the original sources, does not make the reference text
a derivative work of the novels, because the reference does not serve
the same purpose as the novels even though it is a transformation of
them.
Programs written to interoperate with other programs are not derivative
works of those programs. And a good thing, too.
- GPL 2(b) HUH?, Rjack, 2008/09/16
- Message not available
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/17
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/18
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Ben Pfaff, 2008/09/19
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Alexander Terekhov, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Barry Margolin, 2008/09/20
- Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?, Hyman Rosen, 2008/09/21