Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Glenn Maynard wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:35:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>>Work that is entirely written by you can still be a derivative of >>>another work. For example, if you write a program that uses GNU >>>Readline, that program is a derivative of GNU Readline, even if you >>>don't actually distribute GNU Readline with your program. >> >> More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary >> is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not. (I'm not sure >> if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.) > > That's debatable. If your program is written against a library, and > there is only one implementation of that library, I would argue that the > source is a derivative of the library as well. Things get more complex > if there are multiple implementations, of course.
I don't think you mean "derivative" in the same way the USC 17 means "derivative", and I *really* don't think you mean it in the same way Berne does. The idea that influence grants copyright is not common -- indeed, it's not in any legal system I know of. That would mean that everybody who decided to write a magic-school book after reading Harry Potter would be infringing Rowling's copyright. Most seriously, of course, your scheme is not time-invariant. "It *was* a derivative, but it isn't now," is not something we should ever be hearing. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
