[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Licensing question about the BSD
From: |
Bruce Lewis |
Subject: |
Re: Licensing question about the BSD |
Date: |
04 Aug 2005 13:30:03 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> Steve wrote:
> >
> > You've lost me on this point as well. Are you trying to say that
> > incorporation of another project's code into your own project does not
> > constitute a "derived work" so long as you don't modify the code you've
> > incorporated?
>
> It doesn't constitute a derivative work under copyright law.
>
> > Why is it then that if I build an application on
> > MS-Windows using the Cygwin port of GCC, even though I haven't altered a
> > single line of GPL'ed code, I am still forced to license my work under
> > the GPL... because Cygwin dynamically links my code to a GPL'ed DLL.
>
> No. That's because you've been fooled (not really forced) by the FSF's
> baseless propaganda regarding linking, I suppose.
I thinking you're taking a far too technical view on what constitutes a
derivative work, and I'll use an example to explain why.
Suppose I created a painting designed to fit under the Mona Lisa and
fill in the rest of her body. I mount it on a board, carefully aligned
under an exact copy of the Mona Lisa. Technically, I haven't altered a
single brush stroke of the original painting. Does this mean my new
work is a compilation? I don't think so. I would expect a judge or
jury to view my work as a recasting or adaptation of the original work,
thus fitting the legal definition of a derivative work.
We all know that 500-year-old paintings are not subject to copyright
unless the painter was employed by Walt Disney(1), but suppose for the
sake of argument that I had incorporated the Mona Lisa unlawfully. If
my work is a derivative, I have no copyright protection on whatever part
incorporates(2) the Mona Lisa.
It's the same with a GPLed program. If you incorporate it into a new
application, it may not help that you haven't altered a single line of
GPL'ed code. Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
likely to make it a derivative work.
Footnotes:
(1) this is a joke that people familiar with U.S. copyright issues will
get.
(2) U.S. copyright law says "protection for a work employing preexisting
material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of
the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." However,
I think Alexander is right that "used" is an inappropriate term in
the context of copyright. I use "incorporated" here even though its
definition needs to stretch a little to cover derivative works.
"Use" can easily be taken to include using a program, but that isn't
covered by copyright law. When you see "used" in U.S. copyright
law, think "put to a use that is the exclusive right of the
copyright holder."
- Licensing question about the BSD, Steve, 2005/08/01
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Per Abrahamsen, 2005/08/02
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Steve, 2005/08/02
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Alexander Terekhov, 2005/08/02
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Steve, 2005/08/02
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Alexander Terekhov, 2005/08/03
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD,
Bruce Lewis <=
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Alexander Terekhov, 2005/08/04
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Isaac, 2005/08/04
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Alexander Terekhov, 2005/08/04
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Bruce Lewis, 2005/08/05
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Alexander Terekhov, 2005/08/05
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Bruce Lewis, 2005/08/05
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Isaac, 2005/08/05
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Bruce Lewis, 2005/08/16
- Re: Licensing question about the BSD, Isaac, 2005/08/17
- derivative works (was: Licensing question about the BSD), Bruce Lewis, 2005/08/18