Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Rjack]

John Hasler wrote:
> Hyman Rosen writes:
> > Only if putting the new scheduler into Linux involves enough
> > changes to the rest of Linux to be considered a significant
> > work of authorship. Otherwise, Linux + new scheduler is just a
> > combined work.

> So putting a new chapter nine into Harry Potter does not create a
>  derivative?

We must first answer a few preliminary questions before we may
decide whether a "new chapter" creates a derivative work.

Was the chapter written in C (Linux) or common English (Potter)?

Was The chapter written by one author (Potter) or literally
hundreds of authors (Linux)?

If you can't answer this question, STOP now: What (and whose)
exclusive work was actually modified?

Let's apply the AFC test to the "new chapter":

What does the derivative work look like after filtering the
unprotected elements?

Elements are filtered out of consideration on the basis of broad
criteria, including:

1) Is the element’s expression dictated by reasons of efficiency,
such as when it is the best way of performing a particular function.

2) Is the element’s expression dictated by external factors, such as
using an existing file format or interoperating with another
program.

3) Is the element’s expression a conventional way of writing
something in the particular programming language or machine running
the program.

4) Is the element, at the particular level of abstraction, an
unprotectable process and not protectable expression.

5) Is the element is taken from the public domain or is it an
non-protectable fact.

Any protection for elements dictated by efficiency or external
factors or processes must come from patents or trade secrets, if at
all, and not from copyright.

It would be advisable to read: "Chapter 2: Copyright of Computer
Programs" before leaping to any conclusions about derivative
computer programs.

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise24.html

Sincerely,
Rjack :)