On 2/22/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 2007-02-22 15:57:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > As far as copyright is concerned, you're right -- its most likely > _Not_ a derivative work, but would still likely infringe the GPL'ed > code. How could it? I mean, if it isn't a derived work, by what mechanism could it possibly infringe on the GPL? -- ams
A derivative work is generally a work that utilizes underlying copyrighted elements with additional (new) material. As I learned it (and as it seems to be reflected frequently--but by no means always--in court cases), a derivative work also requires some sort of permission by the original copyright owner of the borrowed aspect of the work. So if its your previous work, no problem. Permission is assumed. If its the GPL, assuming you comply with the GPL, permission is also granted to use the underlying work. Otherwise, its just a borrowed aspect of the work without permission, and that is usually classified as infringement. There's probably a case on this somewhere, and if I'm incorrect, please feel free to point that out. I don't profess to be an expert in copyright law, much less an expert in esoteric aspects of legal syntax and language.
