Le mardi 08 mars 2011 à 07:30 -0800, Ken Arromdee a écrit : > >> Parsing the output of a program doesn’t make a derivative work. However, > >> if this parsing is vital for the operation of the application and makes > >> it useless without that program, what is the difference with dynamic > >> linking to a library? To a programmer, there might be one, but to a > >> court, there wouldn’t be any. > > By this reasoning, if I write a program which converts another word > processor's > output to Microsoft Word format, then that program is a derivative of > Microsoft Word, at least until Open Office gets a filter good enough to read > it.
This is a completely unrelated case. Functionally, such a program can work without Microsoft Word. > Moreover, by this reasoning, if I write a program that runs only on Windows, > or which interfaces with some proprietary Windows protocol, Microsoft can > legitimately claim that I am violating their copyright by creating an > unauthorized derivative of their work. Microsoft gives you explicit permission to link to the system libraries provided with Windows. > This definition of "derivative work" is something which the FSF claims, but > which many people outside the FSF are skeptical of precisely because of > absurd consequences like these. If you want to prove something is absurd, please point to absurdities first. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `- -- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299598463.18970.8.camel@meh
