On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 7, 2003, at 17:07, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > >Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >>Huh? Please, could someone please find the derivative works in the > >>following, in chronological order: > >> > >> 1. I create a program, Anthony's Foo Editor, and add a plugin > >>API. > >> I release my program under the MIT X11 license. > >> 2. Weston Manning (a new maintiner) uploads Anthony's Foo Editor > >>as > >> afe. > >> 3. Marc Spencer creates a plugin, Frobit, under the OpenSSL > >>license > >> 4. Weston Manning uploads afe-frobit > >> 5. Duncan Finch creates a plugin, Barnitz, under the GPL, > >>version 2 > >> 6. Weston Manning uploads afe-barnitz > > > >If I understand the FSF correctly, they claim that a package > >containing both 'afe' and the 'barnitz' plugin is a derivative > >work of the 'barnitz' plugin. > > No package containing both was created in the above! > > Even if one were, it'd be a compilation --- not a derivative work --- > as there was no modification of either work. IOW, a mere aggregation. That is not at all clear. A package containing them both clearly would not "function usefully" without one of them - then it wouldn't be "a package containing them both". So it's plausible to argue that it *is* a derivative work. Whenever you are faced with a plausible argument for both sides, the one with the more expensive lawyer wins. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature