On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 11:10:11AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Derick Rethans <derick@xdebug.org> writes: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > >> >>This is much broader. For example, I cannot write a derivative called > >> >>"Brian's Xdebug" or "Xdebug manual" or even "A third-party manual for > >> >>Xdebug". > >> > > >> > The manual is no problem, that's not a derived product. > >> > >> It could very well be a derivative; a manual might want to copy some of > >> the code for illustrative purposes, or copy various comments. > > > > IMO just copying a tiny bit of code or copying various comments does not > > make something a derivate. I mean, com'on, other people can come up with > > those same comments or tiny bits of code. > > This seems to me to be no different from citing a paragraph from a > book, which is perfectly legal under normal copyright law. There is no such thing as "normal copyright law". Not all jurisdictions out there have any concept of what is known commonly as "fair use", which is the only thing I can think of that would allow you to quote a paragraph from a copyrighted book without the copyright holder's permission. > If a code fragment is used in another program, matters might be > different, though. Why? - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature