On 6/8/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I integrate your MP3 decoding library into my media playing software. The > author of the MP3 decoding source code is very clear: you. I can only reuse > that library due to the license granted to it. That license is revoked. I > can no longer use the MP3 decoder[1]; if it's affected my work enough that > I can not excise it from my code (so my work is not a derived work of the > library), it's up a creek. This isn't a case of you contributing patches > to work that I'm the author of; it's you authoring an independent work, and > my integrating your work into mine--one of the most fundamental parts of > free software. > > [1] or, for the nitpickers, "can no longer distribute my work which is > derived from the MP3 decoder".
Presumably you wrote this before reading my subsequent messages. Your use of this hypothetical MP3 library through its published interface does not create a derivative work under copyright law. But suppose you have received both license to copy and license to create and publish derivative works, and then receive the statutory minimum two-year notice of license termination. You would be well advised to find time somewhere in that two-year interval to make changes to that library sufficient to constitute creation of a derivative work, and then to freeze its API. For 17 USC 203 (b)(1) grants you the right to continue distribution of that derivative work after the termination becomes effective; and a sane court is likely to hold that localized bug fixes thereafter do not constitute "preparation ... of other derivative works" in excess of this privilege. Cheers, - Michael
