| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretationIBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretationPosted Aug 19, 2004 7:16 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretation by tbird20d Parent article: IBM's summary judgment motion Sort of. First, what a "derivative" work is, is an issue of copyrigth-law, not an issue of what the GPL (or any other license) says. Assume I buy some code X from you, and then add my own code Y to that to produce and sell product XY. Later I contribute some of my code Y to a third project Z, producing ZY. Now, XY migth quite reasonably be a derivative work of X. That is reasonable. What is *NOT* reasonable, and what SCO is attempting, is to say that ZY (which contains no traces of X) nevertheless is a derived work of X.
(Log in to post comments)
IBM Memo has interesting implications for GPL interpretation Posted Aug 19, 2004 10:41 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] It depends. Remember that the definition of derivative is "transformation of". If Y was not just added to X, but transformed somehow till the point that XY was possible, then Y *is* a derivative work of X; if Z was transformed in a way that made YZ possible, then Z also is a derivative of X, by way of being a derivative of Y. And this *is* reasonable.
|
|
||||||||||||