IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
I'll try to put it in as simple terms as possible:

the question you introduced was:
"Is class inheritance a derivative work in the eyes of copyright law?"

Let's skip the legal debate for a second and skip right to the 
possible solutions: either inheritance is derived or it isn't.

If inheritance is not deriving, then end of argument,
we can all move on, and you owe David a case of beer.
(and I'll invite David over to my house so we can drink it.)

if inheritance IS a derivative work, then what?

well, interestingly enough, out of all your posts, you never
stated precisely what you wanted to do with it if it were the case.
so I have to infer based on a couple of your comments:

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4095:200110:khmhcbbffnhmniefacoe
> the scary scenario is
> somebody will inherit a class, make some modifications to it, 
> and then claim that since it's not a "derivative work", 
> s/he doesn't have to publish it, and the new class is his own 
> proprietary code.

I'm not certain, I'll have to some inferring, but this is what I get:

1) you want a license that says all inheritee classes must be made public
   (whether distributed or not)

2) or possibly, (I'm really inferring, because your scary scenario
   above doesn't mention a connection with re-distribution) 
   you want a license that says all inheritee classes must be made public 
   if re-distributed.

who is actually going to use code licensed this way?
more importantly, who is going to contribute code licensed this way?
In the world's view, if they do all the work to add to the usefulness
of your code, their work is owned and licensed by you.


Whether or not inheritee classes are a "derived work" is irrelevent.
The question is whether or not your proposed license is open source 
to begin with and whether or not anyone would contribute code.

further exploration:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mas:4164:cndgjolakcgfihknndjn

>the spirit of open source is to share the
>code and the improvements back to the community. 

yes, agreed. but before improvements can be given back,
someone has to actually share a code base.

your license shares nothing.  you give up nothing.

APSL says all modifications must be made public,
but restricts itself to cases where mods are re-distributed.
By not distributing their mods, a person doesn't have to go public.

GPL says all outside code that is linked with GPL code
must be GPL as well, but restricts itself to cases
where the linked code is redistributed as an executable.

By distributing their non-GPL code wiht a make file and having
the user do the build, a person can avoid using the GPL license.

YOU HAVE NO EXCEPTIONS TO YOUR LICENSE.
anyone who contributes to the usefulness of your code by writing
an inheritee class MUST USE YOUR LICENSE.

It's not a matter of "can you do it",
it's not a matter of "is inheriting deriving?"
it's a matter of whether such a license would actually 

     BENEFIT ANYONE BUT YOURSELF.

here's a telling quote:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:map:4189:cndgjolakcgfihknndjn

> I am saying is that I don't want people to change my design within the
>     design boundaries

perhaps you might want to review the opensource homepage:

: The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers 
: can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of 
: software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, 
: people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is 
: used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems
: astonishing.


you may have legal basis to have the license you want
(one that limits inheritee classes on the grounds that they are derived)
but I'd argue that what you want to do is NOT an open source license.

and even IF you were to get OSI to approve such a license,
there still remains the question of whether or not anyone
would actually contribute code to your class.

There is no avenue for anyone to create additional code for selfish reasons.
as even minorly selfish that they get to make it opensource with a 
license other than your own. you would remove that option.

you share nothing.

IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
Greg London




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

