In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > But if you looked at Linux, decided the scheduler was crap, and then wrote a > > completely new scheduler for Linux, then that would be a derivative work > > No, it would not. By statute, in the U.S., a derivative work is a > transformation of another work which retains its original purpose - A new version of Linux with a different scheduler serves the same purpose: they're both operating system kernels. > turning a short story into a movie script, or translating into a > different language. See the Harry Potter case, where the judge said > that turning narratives into a reference text, even with massive > copying from the original sources, does not make the reference text > a derivative work of the novels, because the reference does not serve > the same purpose as the novels even though it is a transformation of > them. I think the real-world analogy to the scenario Ciaran described would be if you took the Harry Potter text, removed a chapter, and replaced it with a new chapter that you wrote. What would the status of the resulting book be? Is it a derivative of the original Harry Potter, or a compilation of the originnal chapters (minus 1) and the new chapter? -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss