[resent] Hi debian-legal, I have a interesting situation here (and AlexD which is in Cc: ) may add more. Alex (who works for Nominet) wrote dnsruby - a port of perl Net::DNS library to ruby. Original Net::DNS is licensed under perl license (which is GPLv1+ or Artistic). dnsruby follows the interface of Net::DNS and f.e. demo/ subdirectory contains rewritten examples which retains mention of original authors of perl code. Now Nominet UK want's this code to be licensed under Apache 2.0 license. The question is If the Nominet is able to do that. They have asked Olaf Kolkman and Michael Fuhr, who're active maintainers of Net:DNS, and they both agree, but there is some code written by Chris Reinhardt, who is not reachable at his last known email.
Question is - to what extent is a port a complete rewrite and to what extent is it a derivative work.
If it doesn't contain any of the original perl code, and the similarities are dictated by the need for compatibility, then the chances are the port contains no copyrights belonging to Net:DNS, and Nominet can do what they like.
Alex can perhaps add more. Please keep me and Alex in Cc:, thanks. Ondrej P.S.: I would very much like to know the answer in general way - I'm thinking about doing similar thing - rewriting some library to python with retaining as much interface as possible from original perl library.
A port will strip a large amount of copyright. Think of a translation of, eg, Harry Potter. The French copyright belongs the frenchman who translated it. The copyright in the story itself still belongs to JKR. If you're doing a port the "story" may well be dictated to you by the need to be compatible, in which case all the original copyright has been lost, and the port is totally yours.
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk