[linux-elitists] Linus Torvalds puts GPL "derivative work" debate to rest
Seth David Schoen
Sun Dec 7 18:54:17 PST 2003
Nick Moffitt writes:
> [Quoting Linus Torvalds]
> > "I ended up looking up the exact wording of the US copyright law for
> > the definition of 'derivative', and guess what I find a few lines
> > below it:
> > 'The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of
> > receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
> > copyrighted works.'
> > "So . . . when he attacks the GPL as being somehow against
> > 'financial gain', that notion that the GPL has of 'exchange of
> > receipt of copyrighted works' is actually EXPLICITLY ENCODED in the
> > US copyright law. It's not just a crazy idea that some lefty commie
> > hippie dreamed up in a drug-induced stupor.
Of course, the GPL is not really a matter of software barter (which
the NET Act made a criminal offense if the software is proprietary).
SCO might object that the GPL fails to promote progress because it
permits some amount of free riding.
> > A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
> > works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
> > fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
> > reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
> > work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
> > editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
> > modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
> > authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
That's why the question of whether one computer program is a
derivative work of another is a question of caselaw rather than
Seth David Schoen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Very frankly, I am opposed to people
http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | being programmed by others.
http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | -- Fred Rogers (1928-2003),
| 464 U.S. 417, 445 (1984)
More information about the linux-elitists