> From: Michael Cortez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Of particular interest is "The Court fully recognized the > need for expert > testimony at trial about the GNU GPL and the technical facts at hand, > particularly as to why static linking of software components > into a single, > unified, compiled binary forms a derivative work of the > original components" I wish they'd take up the issue of dynamic linking. I think its irrefutable that a static link creates a derivative work. Though it's another indication of the idea that "derivative in part means derivative as a whole" is the standard application sought by the software copyright holders in these kinds of matters. (Actually, I think they'll have no problems asserting that claim. Having read hundreds of copyright cases, I was never able to find a single case where the court "parsed" a copyright in a work into separate divisions based on derivation. The courts seem to take the view that there's only one copyright in any given work, and that copyright can be shared, but not split.) Though after today's prelminary injunction, I suspect the case will quickly settle and we'll not see a precendent set. Denial of the trademark is the real issue at hand from the perspective of the plaintifs; the GPL infringements are an interesting, but I think ultimately immaterial, sideshow to the real damages at hand. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
