[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sun Jul 8 17:21:44 UTC 2012
Grahame Grieve scripsit:
> Is it only a derivative work if it quotes at length from the source? more than
> fair use? where do the html tutorials stand, then, that "derive" from the html
> specification in violation of the w3c license?
Note that the answer is not only law-specific (it depends on the
controlling legal jurisdiction) but also fact-specific. The U.S. legal
definition of "derivative work" is:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
These would clearly cover adaptation of the text of the standard into
other standards, but an implementation of the standard doesn't look like
recasting, transforming, or adapting.
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
"Make a case, man; you're full of naked assertions, just like Nietzsche."
"Oh, i suffer from that, too. But you know, naked assertions or GTFO."
--heard on #scheme, sorta
More information about the License-discuss