[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: documentation x executable code

* Michael K. Edwards:

> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:49:36 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> * Craig Sanders:
>> > and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists
>> > even when it is not explicitly granted by the license.
>> Without permission from the author, you may not redistribute patches
>> in many jurisdictions.  (DJB's analysis clearly does not apply to the
>> situation in Germany, just to name one example.)
> Could you elaborate on this?  Is this because there are snippets of
> the code being modified in the patch?  Or is there some more basic
> theory in operation by which patches are equated with the derivative
> works resulting from their application, or are incitements to
> infringement by their recipients?  Do you have a reference to which
> you could point readers, preferably directly from a statute or legal
> proceeding?  (I read German very, very slowly, but I'll give it a
> shot.)

Under German law, all changes to a computer program require explicit
permission from the copyright holder *if* you want to share them with
others.  (Some private modifications are permitted.)  See
<http://www.netlaw.de/gesetze/urhg.htm>, §§ 69 c, d, e UrhG.

Reply to: