Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:

> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of
>>>another work.  For example, if you write a program that uses GNU
>>>Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you
>>>don't actually distribute GNU Readline with your program.
>> 
>> More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
>> is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not.  (I'm not sure
>> if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
>
> That's debatable.  If your program is written against a library, and
> there is only one implementation of that library, I would argue that the
> source is a derivative of the library as well.  Things get more complex
> if there are multiple implementations, of course.

I don't think you mean "derivative" in the same way the USC 17 means
"derivative", and I *really* don't think you mean it in the same way
Berne does.  The idea that influence grants copyright is not common --
indeed, it's not in any legal system I know of.  That would mean that
everybody who decided to write a magic-school book after reading Harry
Potter would be infringing Rowling's copyright.

Most seriously, of course, your scheme is not time-invariant.  "It
*was* a derivative, but it isn't now," is not something we should ever
be hearing.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu