WordPress, themes, and derivative works [LWN.net]

WordPress, themes, and derivative works

Posted Jul 29, 2010 22:29 UTC (Thu) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
In reply to: WordPress, themes, and derivative works by tzafrir
Parent article: WordPress, themes, and derivative works

"BTW: I really like your idea about adaptations. So if I have a printer whose drivers don't allow me to do silly things, is it within my right to adapt them? Distribute the resulting code? For profit?"

It helps if you actually read the law. The provision I quoted applies to end users. It also prohibits distribution of those adaptations:

"it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make...another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine...or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. (b)...Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." (17 USC 117(a),(b))

(Log in to post comments)

WordPress, themes, and derivative works

Posted Jul 29, 2010 22:44 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

So if I have a printer whose drivers don't allow me to do silly things, is it within my right to adapt them?
The provision I quoted applies to end users. It also prohibits distribution of those adaptations:

Not only that, in the case of adapting out the silliness in the printer driver, the law doesn't help the end user either. It says you can make adaptations needed to run the program, and was intended to address the perverse interpretations of copyright law that once existed that loading (and relocating, etc.) a program required permission from the copyright owner. As long as you can use the printer driver to do the things it was intended to do, I don't think any court would say it's an essential step in using the driver to remove silly restrictions from it.