At 2007-02-24 16:15:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > but it is rather likely that a court would rule that the work is > derivative.
Has that specific question ever been tested in court? > your printpi program is clearly derivative of printf Because it significantly transforms, adapts, or recasts printf? That seems a bit of a stretch to me, and I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that the use of printf to communicate the result is merely a detail in what is otherwise a complex program to calculate pi. I could change my program to communicate its results by making the keyboard LEDs blink without changing its nature. Note that I'm *not* arguing, as under fair use provisions, that I should be allowed to use printf without having to comply with its license. If I distribute printpi without also providing the printf source, I'm clearly infringing on the printf author's copyright. I'm saying only that it's not clear as a matter of law whether my infringement consists of distributing a copyrighted work without the author's permission, or in creating a derived work (under copyright law) without the author's permission (which is one infringement) and then distributing it (which is another infringement). > but afaik "fair use" provisions have never been applied to software, > though the GPL's wording doesn't exclude this. A very interesting point. BTW, have you read Lexmark vs. Static Control? -- ams
