Hi, > And I committed this file to our repo. Would you still insist that it is > a derivative work?
It probably depends on how it was generated. That why some people go to large efforts to make cleanroom implementing without even looking at the original code. > If I write a book about CreateJS and list some of the APIs of CreateJS, > the pages I wrote do not need the CreateJS license and I could license it > how I want to. It would be different if I copied their actual > implementation or modifications of their implementation. Well interestingly enough I have been in this exact situation and I was required to get permission (i.e. a license if you will) from the owners of the code to be able to include it in my book. I had to credit them and include their license and respect their trademarks. Now that could of just been the US publisher being overly cautious... But rather than hypertheticals let focus on the actual issue here. > Roy and everyone else were not informed that Adobe Legal determined that > the file is a new work and not a derivative work because it is a list I included your email to this list in my email to legal discuss so they knew at that point as much as everyone else here did. > Fundamentally, I took the time to get a real legal opinion. Which still may or may not be in line with ASF policy, again lets wait and see what Roy comes back with. Thanks, Justin
