On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:52:02PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote: > Quoting Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >Jamie Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>I agree with the rest of what you said though. A patch is considered a > >>derived work, > > > >Are you sure? Is there legal precedence on this? Are you willing to > >bet the cost of a copyright lawsuit?
Not absolutely. There appear to be no precedents specifically relating to diffs. The similar cases that get cited found that third party Duke Nukem levels are considered derived works, and likewise fan fiction relating to films and books, even though no part at all of the original was copied. The argument is that the new works would not have been possible without the originals, and hence that the 'spirit' of the original was in some sense derived from. As for a suit, even were patches not considered derived works, the law set great store by 'accepted practice' and the actions of the 'reasonable man'. Posting a patch against a GPLed program to a public list dedicated to discussing that program would cause most in the industry to infer that the patch was GPLed, so we can expect a judge to agree. But, it could be expensive. > >I find it strange that something I write isn't mine to do what I want > >with -- even if it is a modification to something else. (But then I > >find a lot of so-called intellectual property strange) > <snip> > > The patch is also copyright the patch-writer (unless otherwise stated), > so the patch-writer can relicense it how he/she sees fit, IIRC and > IANAL. Assuming that patches are in fact derived works, the patch writer is indeed an /additional/ copyright holder, but but he can only relicense it within the wishes of the other copyright holders, i.e. those of the original work. If they aren't, then of course you're right. Oh, and IANAL, in case that wasn't obvious... -- Jamie Webb _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
