Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:02:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The
> > author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse
> > that library due to the license granted to it. That license is revoked. I
> > can no longer use the MP3 decoder; if it's affected my work enough that
> > I can not excise it from my code (so my work is not a derived work of the
> > library), it's up a creek. This isn't a case of you contributing patches
> > to work that I'm the author of; it's you authoring an independent work, and
> > my integrating your work into mine--one of the most fundamental parts of
> > free software.
> >  or, for the nitpickers, "can no longer distribute my work which is
> > derived from the MP3 decoder".
> Presumably you wrote this before reading my subsequent messages. Your
> use of this hypothetical MP3 library through its published interface
> does not create a derivative work under copyright law.
"Published interface"? Again, "integrate into my software", not "link
against a published interface". Copy code directly into my program, and
allow the works to merge and integrate.
Another major, obvious example is forks.
> For 17 USC 203 (b)(1) grants you the right to continue distribution of
> that derivative work after the termination becomes effective; and a
> sane court is likely to hold that localized bug fixes thereafter do
> not constitute "preparation ... of other derivative works" in excess
> of this privilege.
If the right to prepare derivative works is revoked, the work is clearly
non-free, and we again have a failure of the tentacles of evil test.