On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 11:49:23AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I still think that we have gross misunderstanding here of what
> constitutes a derived worked. So far, those who claim that there is a
> copyright problem have not shown any example that would undermine their
> claim that the DVI output is a derivative work of texinfo.tex.
Why do those who claim there is a copyright problem have to prove a
negative? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of those who claim their
is no problem to show examples that undermine the claim that DVI output
is a derivative work of texinfo.tex?
For reference, "derivative work" is defined (for places under the
jurisdiction of the U.S.) by USC Title 17, Section 101[1].
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''.
Another useful definition may be that of "collective work", defined in
the same place:
A ''collective work'' is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole.
It seems to me that a file which contains texinfo.tex would qualify
under the above definitions as both a "derivative work", in that any
file which contains texinfo.tex in any "recast", "transformed", or
"adapted" format is a derivative work of texinfo.tex by definition.
Furthermore, it is (probably) uncontroversial that a texinfo-using
document can be a "separate and independent work in [itself]", so that
the product of combining such a work with texinfo.tex is a "collective
work" under U.S. copyright law.
I do not speculate on, and posit nothing about, this dispute in
territories beyond the reach of U.S. copyright law.
[1] There are many online copies of the United States Code. I used
<URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec=101 >.
--
G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if
branden@debian.org | you really make them think, they'll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you. -- Don Marquis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature