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: