IANAL, TINLA on 19/10/01 1:53 pm, Chris Gray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then whose > implementation > of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
No-one's. Is the original work changed? No. Is the original work copied&pasted? No. Is the original work translated to produce the new work? No. Does the new work rely heavily on the original FOR ITS CONTENT? No. The text file just sits there. When it's compiled to object code/bytecodes, it's still just sitting there. It does not contain copied, translated or derived (in the copyright sense) content from the original. Linking is another matter as people have pointed out. The difference between "deriving" a class and "deriving" a work form a copyrighted work is as big as would be expected between a bit of OO jargon and a legally defined term. Please can people stop confusing oo-derivation with (c)-derivation. Programmers may know "derive", "use", "relationship", "adapt", etc., etc., from programming, but their legal usage is quite different and is not flexible. Out of curiosity could function/method names be trademarked to regulate their calling? :-) - Rob. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
