[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:58:26 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)

Barry Margolin wrote:
In article <vl7Ak.413$>,
 Hyman Rosen <> wrote:

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 -

A new version of Linux with a different scheduler serves the same purpose: they're both operating system kernels.

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

I think the real-world analogy to the scenario Ciaran described would be if you took the Harry Potter text, removed a chapter, and replaced it with a new chapter that you wrote. What would the status of the resulting book be? Is it a derivative of the original Harry Potter, or a compilation of the originnal chapters (minus 1) and the new chapter?

Uh. Linux has hudreds of contributors. Did hundreds of authors contribute their copyrighted works to Harry Potter?

Rjack :)

reply via email to

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