> > That is the heart of the question - are you just using some generic > > interface (and US caselaw is mostly against API copyright) or are you > > creating a new work which incorporates an existing work. > > The strange part is that this concept can change after the fact or by > the existence of code you didn't know about. I think the legal system > will have a problem with it. I never said that it would change. Whether one work is incorporating another doens't change because two copies of the "other" exist. The question is much more about whether it is generic. Suppose you write a piece of software which is split into a collection of modules. At what point do I need your permission to dynamically link another program against them. Clearly I do if I just put all of your modules together again. Fairly clearly I do if I put most of your program back together and tweak a few bits (eg if you write a game and I link all of your game back together with a single module change say to let me turn the music on or off). At the other end if I use your library implementation of something like printf (say you had written your own), it would appear I do not, as it is a generic interface. There is a point at which I am taking your creative work and modifying it, and a point at which I am just using generic interfaces you provided. The challenge is to work out which is which, and even more importantly to evolve a set of meaningful tests to make that decision. > > Just as with books - am I creating a book referencing another work or a > > book that incorporates chunks of another book, and that depends on > > context and isn't entirely clear - see the current Harry Potter lawsuit. > > Book examples aren't very similar. It seems to be where many lawyers look to understand the equivalences in copyright law where there is caselaw, along with things like record compilations. Alan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
