Steve Greenland writes:
> Is 'system ("dpkg -command arg");' an "editorial elaboration"?
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No. It's a reference (a concept that predates software). A work that
> refers to another work is not a derivative of that other work.
No, you are reading more into the law than is really there.
The concept of "reference" used by a literary work is not congruent with
the similarly-named concept used by software. A literary reference simply
notes that another work exists, within limits: it must not incorporate so
_significant_ an amount of the text of the work that the work is duplicated.
In fact, if a significant amount _is_ incorporated without permission, it
would be considered plagarism. In contrast, when one piece of software calls
into another, you can trace the thread of control from one work into another,
and a significant part of the called work, perhaps all of it, is processed.
If you write a single-purpose GUI shell for "dpkg", that should indeed be
considered a derivative work of dpkg - even though it doesn't incorporate
dpkg into its address space, the effect is not very different than if it had
done so. In addition, since the law doesn't state with any degree of
effectiveness _what_ a derived work is in the realm of _software_, there is
room for the license to speak on this issue, and indeed if some body (like us)
comes to a well-reasoned consensus on this issue, that body might eventually
see its conclusions in law.
We all know that patent law is poorly interpreted regarding software. Why
would copyright law be any different?
Thanks
Bruce
