David Schwartz writes: >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > >> > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit >> > you to restrict >> > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to >> > restrict the >> > distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the >> > original work. As far as I know, no law has ever granted this right to >> > copyright holders and no court has ever recognized this right. And I've >> > looked. Courts have specifically recognized the absence of this right. > >> The GPL is very clear in its implementation: it grants wider permission >> to create derivative works than to distribute them, implementing its >> "virality" in terms of restrictions on distribution, not creation. > > It doesn't even need to do this. First sale grants the right to use a > work > one lawfully possesses. One cannot "use" the Linux kernel source without > compiling it. So one doesn't need the GPL to create at least some derivative > works.
Compiling source code is a mechanical operation, not a creative one, so copyright law (at least in the US) treats the compiled version as the original work. I suspect the law is similar for other countries that use common law. There is separate explicit provision (again, in the US) allowing a user to make de minimis changes necessary to operate software on their computer, but it is not a broad grant of permission to create derivative works, and I don't know of any case law that elaborates on how broad it is. Because of that, you still need license from the copyright holder to create a derivative work. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
