[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes:
> Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is
>>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all
>>> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example.
>>
>> I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as possible.
>> Anyone who wants a clarification of "derived work" that is valid for
>> their position in the space-time continuum should visit a law library.
>
> The problem is that all such definitions are based on the notion that
> a "work" is either something tangible, or a performance act. They
> simply don't apply well to computer programs.
A work becomes copyrightable when it is fixed in a tangible form -- so
yes, it is the persistent bits of a computer program, the bits on the
disk, not the algorithm or the stack frames as it runs -- which are
copyrightable. Where's the problem with this, exactly? Please
provide examples.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
