Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Dec 9, 2003, at 08:25, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > >>That doesn't follow. If we assume linking at runtime means creating a > >>derivative work before runtime, then we can conclude only that the > >>plugin is a derivative work of the plugin host. > > > >It is the host that loads the plugin into its memory, not vice > >versa. So it is the host that does the linking. > > A derivative work MUST be based on a pre-existing work. Title 17 USC > Sec. 101 is very clear on that. > > The host was written before the plugin. It thus can't be a derivative > work of the plugin.
I agree. I don't think anyone is arguing that the host by itself suddenly becomes a derivative of the plugin. However, what I'm saying is that if you bundle the existing host and the existing plugin into a composite work, you may have created a derivative work. Just like if I put an existing photograph next to an existing text to produce an illustrated article. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
