> -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Myers > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:01
IANAL, TINLA. > For the latter to be a problem (assuming you don't prohibit it in the > license or just not export the symbols from the DLL), we > assume that new > versions of the grid developed using inheritance in and of > themselves would be legally-derived works. Based on the Micro Star v. FormGen case, I would have to disagree. In order to use MAP files from Micro Star, the end-user had to have the FormGen software on his PC. The MAP files didn't contained any parts from FormGen, but because the original parts "assumed a concrete or permanent form" by a simple reference in those MAP files, they were declared as "derivative work." By analogy, when you create a derived grid, you are referencing my grid, and all the functionality that is not changed or added, is coming from the original grid, and therefore it would constitute a "derivative work." The point is that your "grid story" is based on my "grid story", and thus you're creating a sequel to the original grid. The inheritance tree shows exactly the sequel structure. > This has nothing to do with pure inheritance. If I subclass > your grid class > to make a fully functional class that makes no calls to your > class's code > and refers to no symbols in it (possibly other than its class > name. This is > theoretical, so there are no constructor calls or shared data > structures) > and don't distribute it I am still raising the issue of whether I have > created a legally-derived work or not. I am not sure, I understand the above example. If you extend the grid class, all the functionality of the original grid is there. Since my original grid "assumed a concrete or permanent form" in your derived grid, then based on Micro Star v. FormGen case, your grid is a "derivative work." Michael -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3