Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[Arnoud Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl>]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:34:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> > The problem is that all such definitions are based on the notion that
> > a "work" is either something tangible, or a performance act.  They
> > simply don't apply well to computer programs.
> 
> You're living in the EU I note, so computer programs are explicitly
> defined as literary works (by an EU directive). Look up your local
> copyright law's section on literary works for a starting point, and
> compare the EU copyright directives, because those probably apply as
> well.

The 1991 copyright directive has been turned into national law
in all EU countries by now. Directives do not have legal effect
by themselves. Think of them as model acts that EU countries
have to adopt.

But anyway, although computer programs definitely are recognized
as subject to copyright in the EU, they do not fit the definition
of "derivative work" or "adaptation" very well. There just is no
guidance in this area. If you translate something, turn a book
into a play or putting a poem to music, you can just look it up
in the law. But software just isn't discussed much (other than
the no-reverse-engineering-unless and one-backup-copy provisions
and the like).

Copyright law seems to have been written with the traditional
idea of selling binaries under proprietary licenses in mind.
This makes it very difficult to cope with open source licenses.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/