Re: apache non-free?
* Adrian Bunk (bunk@fs.tum.de) wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> >
> > Come on, it's not a "derivative", it's a patched version. A derivative
> > is if you use portions of it to create a new version, or turn it into a
> > "different product" (e.g. fork it).
> >
> > Adding some patches is not a derivative.
>
> IANAL, so could you give me a link to somewhere where a lawyer says that
> with this interpretation there is no legal risk for us in any country?
Coincidentally, I came across this reading the Microsoft appeals court
ruling today:
...Microsoft must therefore rely on the derivative works right, but
minor modifications to Windows, such as removing the IE icon from the
Windows desktop and promoting Navigator in the boot sequence, plainly
do not produce a "derivative work." A derivative work is "a work based
on one or more preexisting works" that is "an original work of
authorship," 17 U.S.C. 101, and thus copyrightable itself, see 17
U.S.C. 102(a). The classic example is a screenplay adapted from a
novel. But not every alteration to a copyrighted works results in a
derivative work; the variation must be "original" and "substantial."[0]
I am not a lawyer of course, and I offer no argument that the above quote
authoritatively settles the current discussion. I cede that kind of
judgement to people more familiar with the law.
Joshua
[0] http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f7200/7230.pdf pg. 89
--
Joshua Haberman <joshua@haberman.com>
Reply to: