Re: Plugins, libraries, licenses and Debian

[bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen)]

mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) writes:

> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <mru@kth.se>:
>>
>>> I know that is how law works.  I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>>> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
>>
>> I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as possible.
>> Anyone who wants a clarification of "derived work" that is valid for
>> their position in the space-time continuum should visit a law library.
>
> 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.

A work becomes copyrightable when it is fixed in a tangible form -- so
yes, it is the persistent bits of a computer program, the bits on the
disk, not the algorithm or the stack frames as it runs -- which are
copyrightable.  Where's the problem with this, exactly?  Please
provide examples.

-Brian

-- 
Brian T. Sniffen                                        bts@alum.mit.edu
                       http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/