You are in a very gray area here... The question whether the memory snapshot is a derived work of the application, depends on the occasion where it was taken and the definitions you use. Following is an example; hopefully the lawyers around here will expand on it.
Consider MS Windows's Hibernate to disk functionality: 1) You take a standard licensed version of windows. 2) Add some user interaction. 3) Hibernate Windows to a hibernation file. Using the "Classical Definition" of a "derivative work" it can be reasoned that: Before step 3) the memory space contains a "derivative work" of windows. The hibernation file contains the source "code/data" for recreating this "derivative work". Lets say that this Hibernate function was not a standard feature of Windows, but a separate program written by someone else. This program will in effect be creating a patch for Windows to create this "derivative work" Reconsider: Moral and "Fair Use" reasoning: Before step 3) the memory space contains a copyrightable work that is the result of the user using Windows. The hibernation file does not contain Windows; it contains the essence of the user's actions. Even though this file can only be "viewed" using Windows, it should be the property of the user. Just like a Word document is not a "derivative work" of Word, but the property of the user. Regards Jaco Vosloo Application Integrator for .Net ------------------------------------------------------------ DEFINE: Derivative Work http://www.google.com/search?q=define:DERIVATIVE+WORK "Classical Definition" DERIVATIVE WORK - A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'. 17 U.S.C. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d042.htm) "Software Definition" Thread: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:sss:6391:200301:bhkfkonfkjemkcebmknk#b ------------------------------------------------------------ DEFINE: Fair Use http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Fair+Use ------------------------------------------------------------ All statements expressed in this message are opinions of the sender, except where stated otherwise. Emails can contain viruses; make sure your system is protected before opening any attached files. ------------------------------------------------------------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] om To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: 2003/12/04 12:26 Subject: Re: Which License should I pick? AM Please respond to scott On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > SECOND LINE OF QUESTIONS: > > > > The project itself performs actions on the in-core binary images of > > running processes. It is capable of saving snapshots of the address > > spaces of running processes to disk. I would like to have > > clarification whether or not such snapshots would be considered > > "derived works" of the programs they came from. Would it be legal to > > distribute one of these binary snapshots if it came from a running > > program which is licensed under a more restrictive license such as the > > GPL? > > I'm not sure I understand this. > > Snapshots are binary objects, right? > > Yes, you can release them under the GPL, but I don't see the point. No, that isn't what I meant -- I'm not talking about "releasing" the snapshots under any license at all. This line of questioning is totally unrelated to the license I choose for *my* project. What I'm asking is whether it would actually be illegal to distribute such snapshots for the following reason: Imagine that I take a memory snapshot of a running Emacs process. I then send this snapshot to somebody else. If the snapshot is considered a derived work, then I've just made a "binary only" distribution of Emacs, therefore violating the GPL. This would mean that in order to exchange such snapshots, people would have to make the source code to Emacs available from the same location, correct? Basically my question is, if I use my program to take a snapshot of a GPL'd program and then post that snapshot on a website, am I violating the GPL? If that were true, it would seem that posting a core file of a GPL'd application on the website would also be illegal. The difference being, a core file actually contains executable instructions from the original binary on disk. My format is different -- it only contains the DIFFERENCES between what is in memory and what is on disk. So I'm wondering if my snapshots are derived works or not. Thanks, Scott Long -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
