"Derivative Work" for Software Defined

Andre Hedrick andre at linux-ide.org
Tue Jan 14 22:32:20 UTC 2003


Scott--

> My critique of Larry's analysis is to say that considering whether A is a
> derivative work of B is not necessarily the end of the analysis. What I
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Provide one does not introduce subjective points, but where are the points
of fact and not beliefs?

> failed to point out in my previous message (and what I'll try to make
> explicit here) is the following: I believe that one should also consider the
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where is your proof in the equation of facts.

A+B == AB == BA == A^B == B^A or ~= Ae^B ~= e^AB

> question of whether A+B is one program. In that case, A+B is a "work based
> on the Program" and A+B is a derivative work of the Program, even though A
> might not be a derivative work of B. I see this as being wholly consistent
> with sections 0 and 2.

What you do not have is a test to discriminate.

What you have not addressed is A+C == A' and C+B == B'.

C == the abstraction between the two items or their communication path.

C may be the resulting derived work, but the copyright is own by the
author of the original work A.

A has the legal right to use C however it wishes.
C also complies with any issues B has in the tainting by GPL.

So we have both A and B disassociated, and C is joint operation.

Comments?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

IANAL, but Storage Technologist.


On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:

> Larry --
> 
> You keep returning to contract obligations. But, I'm not relying on any
> contract obligations. Any distribution that includes copyrightable material
> from B needs the permission of B's copyright owner. The hypothetical that
> I've presented includes distribution of B. Thus, B's permission is needed.
> I'm trying to understand the conditions the copyright owner has attached to
> the copyright owner's offer of permission to distribute B (the conditions in
> the GPL). So, the conditions specified in the GPL are relevant to what
> someone needs to do in order to legally distribute A+B, without regard to
> whether A+B is has some special status as a protected copyrightable work
> (B's protectable status is enough).
> 
> I think you may be saying that if A is not a copyright infringement of B,
> then there is no copyright problem and thus the GPL is not relevant. That's
> fine for distribution of A by itself. However, the person who wants to
> distribute A and B together (even if only as a mere aggregation) still needs
> the permission of the B's copyright owner and thus, needs to know what
> conditions the GPL might require. (Look up both sleeves. No contract
> obligation in sight. Really!)
> 
> I may not be understanding what you are saying, and we may be talking in
> circles. Perhaps we should await some opportunity when we can sit back in
> the comfort of some overstuffed chairs, possibly with a beverage in hand,
> and have a relaxing interactive discussion.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> I can now see how confusing my use of A+B is. That is based on a
> hypothetical in a parallel discussion branch - I introduced it in my reply
> to David Ravicher: 
> ---------------------
> It is apparent that I have been unclear about what I meant, so let me try a
> hypothetical.
> 
> Assume some code A and some code B. Assume that B is licensed under the GPL
> and that one is trying to answer the question, "When I distribute A and B
> together, must A be distributed under the GPL?"
> My critique of Larry's analysis is to say that considering whether A is a
> derivative work of B is not necessarily the end of the analysis. What I
> failed to point out in my previous message (and what I'll try to make
> explicit here) is the following: I believe that one should also consider the
> question of whether A+B is one program. In that case, A+B is a "work based
> on the Program" and A+B is a derivative work of the Program, even though A
> might not be a derivative work of B. I see this as being wholly consistent
> with sections 0 and 2. 
> 
> What I don't understand is that, if all one needs to do is to answer the
> question, "Is A a derivative work of B?", then what is the point of the
> paragraph in section 2 that I quoted in my earlier message (below).
> ---------------------
> ______________________________
> Scott K. Peterson
> Corporate Counsel
> Hewlett-Packard Company
> One Cambridge Center
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> scott.k.peterson at hp.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: 'PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1)'
> Cc: dravicher at pbwt.com; license-discuss at opensource.org; 'Andre Hedrick';
> 'Ian Lance Taylor'
> Subject: RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> I never suggested that a software license (speaking generally, now)
> "only requires a determination of whether A is a derivative of B."
> Contracts set their own law, and definitions matter.  Theoretically one
> can write a license that sets reciprocity conditions that apply to works
> that link to each other in any way at all, or that merely coexist on the
> same medium.  I won't prejudge whether such a license would be
> compatible with the OSD, but at least it would be legally effective to
> do so.
> 
> But when a license purports NOT to be a contract and intends to be
> interpreted in the same way worldwide under copyright law alone, then I
> don't understand how you can go beyond what that law provides.  Does the
> "legal rule of construction" that you refer to have any application
> outside of contract law?  For a copyright license that is to be
> interpreted under copyright law, why would a court construct anything
> more than what the statutory or case law requires?  How can a licensee
> be bound to interpretive language in a *mere* copyright license?
> 
> I don't think it is true that "if A+B is one work under copyright law,
> then it is a derivative work of both A and B."  (I'm not quoting you
> precisely because your email is slightly garbled; have I misquoted you?)
> What does the "+" mean in your mathematical expression "A+B"?  Suppose A
> is Windows and B is Excel.  Are either of those programs derivative
> works of the other simply because thay are "plussed" together onto the
> same disk, or even link to each other in the course of their execution
> on a computer?  
> 
> What SHOULD the courts do with the language you quoted from section 2 of
> the GPL?  I'm not really sure.  Perhaps a broader interpretation of the
> term "derivative works" as applied to software will be accepted
> ultimately by the courts because of a community concensus that such an
> interpretation is appropriate.  But I'd sure like to offer more than
> precatory language in a copyright license itself to support such an
> interpretation, such as one or more decisions by one or more federal
> courts.  Nobody, including the most fervent advocates of the GPL, have
> ever provided such authority.  
> 
> /Larry
> 
> [to avoid more message bloat, I'll clip down to the hypothetical]
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) [mailto:scott.k.peterson at hp.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 6:52 AM
> > To: 'lrosen at rosenlaw.com'
> > Cc: dravicher at pbwt.com; license-discuss at opensource.org; 
> > 'Andre Hedrick'; 'Ian Lance Taylor'
> > Subject: RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined
> > 
> > 
> > Larry --
> > 
> > I want to become a believer that the appropriate analysis 
> > only requires determination of whether A is a derivative of 
> > B. But I just don't see how that analysis squares with that 
> > paragraph of section 2. I am stuck on that legal rule of 
> > construction that says that in judging various possible 
> > interpretations, one should weigh more heavily those 
> > interpretations that give meaning to all of the provisions. 
> > 
> > Is this a point on which you think that the authors of the 
> > GPL were wrong in their understanding of copyright law? Or, 
> > what is your understanding of the meaning of the paragraph of 
> > section 2 that I quoted?
> > 
> > I am not assuming that the GPL does more than leverage the 
> > copyright law. If
> > A+B is one work under the copyright law, then A+B is a 
> > derivative of B 
> > A+and
> > requires B's permission for distribution. Thus, it is 
> > unnecessary to find a contractual obligation to restrict the 
> > distribution of A+B. 
> > 
> > -- Scott
> > ______________________________
> > Scott K. Peterson
> > Corporate Counsel
> > Hewlett-Packard Company
> > One Cambridge Center
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > scott.k.peterson at hp.com
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:13 PM
> > To: 'PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1)'; 'Andre Hedrick'; 'Ian 
> > Lance Taylor'
> > Cc: dravicher at pbwt.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined
> > 
> > 
> > Scott,
> > 
> > I think your response would be appropriate if the GPL were a 
> > contract rather than a mere copyright license.  The GPL is 
> > intended by its authors to be interpreted and enforced under 
> > copyright law.  There is no basis in that law for the 
> > definition of "derivative work" that is implied by the GPL 
> > language you quoted.  How can you assume that a licensee 
> > accepted such a broadened definition of "derivative work" 
> > absent his assent to a contract?
> > 
> > The MPL also attempts to apply to more than derivative works. 
> >  While I don't particularly understand its reach, at least it 
> > is to be enforced as a contract and thus the definitions in 
> > that contract are relevant. That, for me, is the essential 
> > difference between a copyright license and a contract.
> > 
> > The GPL can't do more than copyright law allows -- because 
> > that's how its authors want it to be treated.  I don't 
> > understand how GPL licensors can benefit from contract provisions.
> > 
> > /Larry
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) [mailto:scott.k.peterson at hp.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:30 AM
> > > To: 'lrosen at rosenlaw.com'; 'Andre Hedrick'; 'Ian Lance Taylor'
> > > Cc: dravicher at pbwt.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> > > Subject: RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Larry --
> > > 
> > > I think that you place too much emphasis on the concept of
> > > "derivative work". It seems clear that section 2 of the GPL 
> > > is about more than merely derivative works. If all that 
> > > matters is whether something is a derivative work, then what 
> > > does the following paragraph from section 2 mean:
> > > 
> > > "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.
> > > If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from 
> > > the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and 
> > > separate works in themselves, then this License, and its 
> > > terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute 
> > > them as separate works.  But when you distribute the same 
> > > sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the 
> > > Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms 
> > > of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend 
> > > to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part 
> > > regardless of who wrote it."
> > > 
> > > -- Scott
> > > ______________________________
> > > Scott K. Peterson
> > > Corporate Counsel
> > > Hewlett-Packard Company
> > > One Cambridge Center
> > > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > > scott.k.peterson at hp.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 7:36 PM
> > > To: 'Andre Hedrick'; 'Ian Lance Taylor'
> > > Cc: dravicher at pbwt.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
> > > Subject: RE: "Derivative Work" for Software Defined
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I continue to believe that these confusing messages about
> > > "derivative works" entirely miss the mark.  Where in the 
> > > statutory or case law can one find support for such 
> > > conclusions as are reflected in these messages? 
> > > 
> > > If you don't create "a work based upon one or more
> > > preexisting works" then you have simply not created a 
> > > derivative work.  17 U.S.C. §101. How in the world does an 
> > > independently-written piece of software that communicates 
> > > with another independently-written piece of software through 
> > > a published API ever become a derivative work of that other 
> > > software?  Where in the GPL does it say that it can become a 
> > > derivative work?  
> > > 
> > > Nothing in the Copyright Act addresses the *use* of software
> > > in this way.  If the GPL is enforced under the copyright law, 
> > > then how could a court ever conclude that it reaches to such 
> > > API-connected pre-existing works that merely get used together?
> > > 
> > > /Larry Rosen
> > > 
> > > > > > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it
> > > > relates to binary
> > > > > > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of 
> > > > > > execution. Specifically, the design and publishing an 
> > API which 
> > > > > > properly glues into an open source gpl program or
> > > > kernel(ie loadable
> > > > > > modules services) designed to provide an execution layer
> > > > between the
> > > > > > GPL and Commerial private code. Where as no GPL code in
> > > > any form is
> > > > > > allowed to touch the Commerial code. The converse is true, 
> > > > > > obviously.  The execution layer or boundary. Now using this 
> > > > > > reference from 1995, many companies have gotten legal 
> > positions 
> > > > > > about binary modules.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaav
> > > a.hels
> > > > > inki.fi
> > > > 
> > > > What Linus says presumably is valid for Linux.  RMS 
> > agrees with that 
> > > > in the message you forwarded.  It doesn't necessarily 
> > apply to any 
> > > > program other than Linux.  Note in particular the last 
> > paragraph in 
> > > > Linus's message.
> > > 
> > > If all one is using are headers or .h files and everything
> > > else is from scratch, does using the headers under the 
> > > statement above comply with the intent?
> > > 
> > > I am not seeking an opinion without paying for it.
> > > 
> > > > > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an 
> > interest in not 
> > > > > restricting people.
> > > > 
> > > > Other than your customers, presumably.  Restrictions cut 
> > both ways.
> > > 
> > > In what way would a restrict cut both ways here?
> > > 
> > > I am a little naive, but always try to do the right thing.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Andre
> > > 
> > > --
> > > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> > > 
> > > --
> > > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> > > 
> > 
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3



More information about the License-discuss mailing list