If I distribute the modifications, then yes. In this example only *instructions* are provided. Saying "crop the photo so you see only the face, then put it in a red frame" is not a derivative work of that photo.
All of this is irrelevant. The instructions to crop a photo can be applied to millions of photos, your instructions on how to modify the program can only be applied to a single program to have a useful result. The instructions are the modifications in this case. A patch by any means is a set of instructions on how to modify something, and a patch is always a deriviate work since well, it is a patch... > To create the patch you modified a GPLed work, so it is clearly > a modification in anyway of the word, how you represent these > modifications are once again completely irrelevant. Then there > is the fact that your patch requires the GPLed work to be useful. That's not the copyright law criterion for a derivative work. The derivative has to *contain* all or part of the pre-existing work. And your list of instructions does contain that. You simply choose to represent the dervivate work in a different form. How it is represented is not relevant here since your modifications contain specifc knowledge of the original work. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
