Bug#570621: Parsing output = derivative work?
Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit :
> >> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However,
> >> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes
> >> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic
> >> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a
> >> court, there wouldn’t be any.
>
> By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word processor's
> output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of
> Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read
> it.
This is a completely unrelated case. Functionally, such a program can
work without Microsoft Word.
> Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows,
> or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can
> legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an
> unauthorized derivative of their work.
Microsoft gives you explicit permission to link to the system libraries
provided with Windows.
> This definition of "derivative work" is something which the FSF claims, but
> which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of
> absurd consequences like these.
If you want to prove something is absurd, please point to absurdities
first.
--
.''`.
: :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.”
`- -- J???rg Schilling
Reply to: