| |||||||||||||
WordPress, themes, and derivative worksWordPress, themes, and derivative worksPosted Jul 29, 2010 23:13 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: WordPress, themes, and derivative works by butlerm Parent article: WordPress, themes, and derivative works
The explanation of why it's a derivative work seemed ridiculous to me, too -- traditional (e.g. books, films) copyright arguments don't talk about include() statements and memory, and I don't think there is a large body of tested law specifically about software plugins and such. But I have to pay some deference to SFLC simply because they should know (better than me, anyway) and have a reputation better than plain crackpots. So I wonder what's going on there. Do you know if the derivative work definition has ever been tested in court with software that simply links (after distribution) with other software? Or code that calls other code? Or is it all pure speculation at this point? With regard to the idea that software that links is a derivative work, I like to go back to first principles: the reason for copyright is to prevent someone from using an author's own work to compete against the author, which would make writing unprofitable, so there would be no writing. But plugins don't compete with the base code. If anything, they cause the base code author to get paid more. So I don't see any reason the law would give Wordpress authors control over themes.
(Log in to post comments)
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 29, 2010 23:53 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
So a library can't have any licencing restrictions as to what the code that uses it will do?
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 30, 2010 0:03 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] So a library can't have any licencing restrictions as to what the code that uses it will do?Neither the GPL nor the LGPL attempts to restrict what a calling program is used for.
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 30, 2010 0:14 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
There are all of those pesky libraries that will not allow me to use programs based on them for commercial usage (unless I get a different license, for which I pay separately). One that comes to mind off the top of my head is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Performance_Primi... .
But hey, it's impossible for a library to impose usage restrictions, right?
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 30, 2010 0:26 UTC (Fri) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] You are confusing two things. It is certainly possible for a library to be licensed in such a way that its use is restricted. But this does not depend on the notion of a derived work. Use of the library itself is restricted, independent of what the calling code is used for.
But the GPL explicitly does not do this. Clause 0 says:
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 30, 2010 0:13 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] So a library can't have any licensing restrictions as to what the code that uses it will do? I can't tell how that question relates to the post you replied to. Does it have something to do with the definition of derivative works? Or the purpose of copyright? Taking the question by itself, though: I think it's possible to craft a copyright license for a library so people are restricted in how code they runs uses the library (to the extent you have to copy the library in order to use it, because you need permission from the author to copy it). It's not easy, since a condition on a copyright license must be met before the copying happens, but I think it's been done successfully.
WordPress, themes, and derivative works Posted Jul 30, 2010 6:40 UTC (Fri) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
"So a library can't have any licencing restrictions as to what the code that uses it will do?"
A library certainly can, under certain conditions. Notably a binding contract between the library developer and the end user. Forming that contract is a bit of a trick.
If you download a typical open source library from a web site somewhere, you typically have not clicked on a license agreement. If the web site provides you a legal copy of the software without requiring you to enter into a specific agreement, you now own that copy, and you are not bound by any use license.
The only reason why anyone actually needs to comply with the GPL is so that he/she can legally redistribute modified versions of the software. That requires a license because to do otherwise would violate the copyright of the original authors. No such license is required to use software in any manner that doesn't break copyright (or possibly patent) law, unless the software developer/distributors require you to enter into a licensing agreement before transferring a copy of the software to you.
Shrink wrap licenses are in legal limbo in many areas precisely because this does not happen at the point of purchase. A retail end user now _owns_ a copy of the software, and the First Sale doctrine means that the ability of the software developers to regulate further use has ceased, unless a shrinkwrap licensing agreement is counted as a valid contract between the end user and the original copyright holder no consideration.
If you _own_ a copy of software, or a book, or a CD, what legal principle requires you to enter into a further contract that takes away rights you already have by virtue of that ownership. That is the whole point of the First Sale doctrine, first established by the Supreme Court in 1908, and enshrined into statute in 1978. The software industry wants to take all that away with the pretense that opening shrinkwrap (or clicking yes on a post sale license agreement) constitutes entering into a valid contract. Where's the consideration?
The case for a typical open source license is worse. Where is the contract? A license is not a contract. A legitimate "license agreement" is a contract. A "license" grants you permission to do things you do not already have the right to do. It cannot take away rights you already have, which is why "use license" is an oxymoron.
|
|||||||||||||