Alan Cox wrote:
That is the heart of the question - are you just using some generic
interface (and US caselaw is mostly against API copyright) or are you
creating a new work which incorporates an existing work.
The strange part is that this concept can change after the fact or by
the existence of code you didn't know about. I think the legal system
will have a problem with it.
I never said that it would change. Whether one work is incorporating
another doens't change because two copies of the "other" exist. The
question is much more about whether it is generic.
But that _is_ the FSF claim and the crux of the RIPEM case. Writing an
interface-compatible non-GPL'd library (fgmp) as a potential alternative
made the whole claim that the separate work was 'derived' go away, even
though the alternative wasn't really ever used. The case did change
because of the existence of the other copy gave clear proof that the
choice to link to the GPL'd version was the end user's choice and the
calling code couldn't possibly be considered a derived work of one or
the other. Of course it was never proven the other way, but that was
the FSF position which, as usual compared to less restricted code, just
caused everyone extra trouble.
Suppose you write a piece of software which is split into a collection of
modules. At what point do I need your permission to dynamically link
another program against them.
Never, if you obtained them with the right to use your copy.
Clearly I do if I just put all of your
modules together again.
Not if you have the right to use them.
> Fairly clearly I do if I put most of your program
back together and tweak a few bits (eg if you write a game and I link all
of your game back together with a single module change say to let me turn
the music on or off). At the other end if I use your library
implementation of something like printf (say you had written your own),
it would appear I do not, as it is a generic interface.
I believe the right to modify your copy of something has been
established in at least some cases. And is explicitly given on GPL code.
There is a point at which I am taking your creative work and modifying
it, and a point at which I am just using generic interfaces you provided.
The challenge is to work out which is which, and even more importantly to
evolve a set of meaningful tests to make that decision.
Agreed - but the FSF makes assumptions about it. Personally, I think
the only purpose of a library is to provide use of its interfaces and
functions and there is nothing you can do outside of it that constitutes
a copyright violation. It would be intriguing to see someone try to
prove otherwise in a case where the library's own license specifies that
there are no usage restrictions.
Just as with books - am I creating a book referencing another work or a
book that incorporates chunks of another book, and that depends on
context and isn't entirely clear - see the current Harry Potter lawsuit.
Book examples aren't very similar.
It seems to be where many lawyers look to understand the equivalences in
copyright law where there is caselaw, along with things like record
compilations.
But none of those start with the ability of anyone to obtain their
licensed copy freely, so there is no equivalence. You'd have to start
with the premise that everyone who could possible be the target of the
claimed derived work's infringing copy already has their own licensed
copy of the original. It would be more like providing a custom case for
your own copy of a record than a compilation that includes the same content.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
