In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Kastrup wrote: > > You got a bad case of slandries. > > From <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275>, > quoting from the decision: > > By condensing, synthesizing, and reorganizing the preexisting > material in an A-to-Z reference guide, the Lexicon does not > recast the material in another medium to retell the story of > Harry Potter, but instead gives the copyrighted material another > purpose. That purpose is to give the reader a ready understanding > of individual elements in the elaborate world of Harry Potter > that appear in voluminous and diverse sources. As a result, the > Lexicon no longer "represents [the] original work[s] of > authorship." 17 U.S.C. ยง 101. Under these circumstances, and > because the Lexicon does not fall under any example of derivative > works listed in the statute, Plaintiffs have failed to show that > the Lexicon is a derivative work. > > Look at this, and then tell me that a court will find that a program > which dynamically links to a library is a derivative work of that > library.
Or look at the unauthorized game cartridge cases. Those are directly on point for the "linking makes a derivative work" argument, and the courts have pretty uniformly decided that they are not derivative works. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
