On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:34:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > 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. 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. Most countries either a) define computer programs as literary works, and classify them the same way as books, or b) do not define computer programs as copyrightable material (not many of those left now). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature