On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:02:15AM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > 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.
"Published interface"? Again, "integrate into my software", not "link against a published interface". Copy code directly into my program, and allow the works to merge and integrate. Another major, obvious example is forks. > 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. If the right to prepare derivative works is revoked, the work is clearly non-free, and we again have a failure of the tentacles of evil test. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
