[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes: > Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> I know that is how law works. I just find it strange, that the GPL is >>> so explicit on this point, and yet doesn't bother to clarify at all >>> what a "derived work" might be, just to take an example. >> >> I suppose the idea is to have the GPL apply as broadly as possible. >> Anyone who wants a clarification of "derived work" that is valid for >> their position in the space-time continuum should visit a law library. > > The problem is that all such definitions are based on the notion that > a "work" is either something tangible, or a performance act. They > simply don't apply well to computer programs.
A work becomes copyrightable when it is fixed in a tangible form -- so yes, it is the persistent bits of a computer program, the bits on the disk, not the algorithm or the stack frames as it runs -- which are copyrightable. Where's the problem with this, exactly? Please provide examples. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/