[License-discuss] Derivative Works of a standard

[John Cowan]

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
    “derivative work”.

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