> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 09:28
> if inheritance was legally ruled to be a derived work,
> most open source licenses would get rewritten
> to grant, unconditionally, the right to inherit.
I don't think that
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 20:50
> Well, and what is about all non open source software?
>
> For those it IS a issue if inheritance is (that is you
> speaking not me)derived work.
>
> AS I allready pointed out in several PMs: most sof
> -Original Message-
> From: Karsten M. Self
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 15:06
> I've been trying to ignore this thread for some time. It's not
> possible.
>
> Michael: it's clear that neither facts nor logic will sway your
> position. _That_ point has been sufficiently demonstr
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 09:39
> Your posts indicate you've done some legal research.
> When you quote case history and legal terms, you appear
> quite reasoned.
OK, let's then stick to legal arguments :)
> note: moron here may no
IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
On Wed, 24 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I withdraw.
> That's a shame. I hope, you'll reconsider.
Your posts indicate you've done some legal research.
When you quote case history and legal terms, you appear
quite reasoned.
B
IANAL TINLA IMHO YADA YADA YADA
I'll try to put it in as simple terms as possible:
the question you introduced was:
"Is class inheritance a derivative work in the eyes of copyright law?"
Let's skip the legal debate for a second and skip right to the
possible solutions: either inheritance is der
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 23:24
> The `right to derive classes`? I thought someone explained,
> quite thoughtfully, that this was NOT a matter of concern
> under copyright law.
Which one do you have in mi
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 21:59
> A subclass is not a new version of the grid. It is an
> extension to the grid
> that is completely useless without the original.
David,
in this extension, as you call it, the original grid class "ass
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 09:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Re: "IMHO the author gives the user implicitly the right to create a
> subclass and override the abstract methods."
>
> I'm not so sure -- creating
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:12
> Do you think the ruling in the Micro Star case would have come down
> differently had it not been a copyright case involving a fictional
> storyline included in a game? Since what was copied in tha
> -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 inher
open source licensing.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: "Michael Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 10/24/01 6:07:53 AM
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
> -Origi
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 04:01 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
> No, it has nothing to do with it. Otherwise you would imply that every
> author not giving away the rights to his/her creation (book, movie, song,
> painting, house design, etc.) wants to have a "complete megalomaniac
> control" over th
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 06:07 am, Michael Beck wrote:
> That doesn't matter. The issue is legal, i.e. does the author holds the
> right to future releases of the grid, or can anyone develop new versions of
> the grid by using inheritance?
A subclass is not a new version of the grid. It is a
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 02:49 am, Michael Beck wrote:
> If you go to Altai v. CA (1992), "the Second Circuit designed its Altai
> test to deal with the fact that computer programs, copyrighted as "literary
> works," can be infringed by what is known as "nonliteral" copying, which
> is copy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 16:44
> I must conclude that you are simply too attached to your
> desired outcome
> (that you have complete meglomaniacal control over your software)
> that you shall ever refuse to acknowledge just how ou
On Wed, 24 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > what you're effectively saying is:
> > "But I don't want people to use my house design if they're going
> > to attach a garage to it."
>
> No, what I am saying is that I don't want people to
Rod Dixon wrote:
> I agree that this thread is interesting, although there has been some
> confusion over the derivation of sub classes from a base class in
> object-oriented programming and the meaning of derivative work as a matter
> of copyright law. Interestingly enough, some of the confusion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? You, as some others, have suggested that in order to
> declare something as
> "derivative work", it has to contain parts of the original.
> The above case shows
> that it doesn't have to be the case, that the original part
> can "assume a
> concrete or permanent
Chloe Hoffman wrote:
>
> In the case of Java, there seems to be no need to rely on "fair use". The
> following is from, e.g., the JDK 1.1 documentation:
>
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN) hereby grants to you a fully-paid,
> nonexclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide limited license (witho
MAIL PROTECTED]
> > Betreff: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
> > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Myers
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:54
>
> >
I agree that this thread is interesting, although there has been some
confusion over the derivation of sub classes from a base class in
object-oriented programming and the meaning of derivative work as a matter
of copyright law. Interestingly enough, some of the confusion emanates
from the ill-con
This is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established.
etc etc
>From: "Michael Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
>Date: Wed, 24 Oct
IANAL, TINLA.
on 24/10/01 2:07 pm, Michael Beck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That doesn't matter. The issue is legal, i.e. does the author holds the right
> to future releases of the grid, or can anyone develop new versions of the grid
> by using inheritance?
There is no way that they can do t
I find this thread interesting, and hope that when some consensus is
reached (or the thead dies down and there is perhaps an "agreement to
disagree") that someone can summarize the areas of consensus and
disagreement for a layman. (Perhaps the best resting place for
something like that is on a wi
Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 06:06
>
> > Every implementation of the Java language contains the
> > non-abstract class
> > java.util.Properties, which does in fact implement all the met
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Myers
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:54
> Unless they distribute your code without negotiating a deal
> with you (which
> is piracy), people will still need to buy your class in order
> to use the
> oo-derived class. So this would drive sales of y
on 24/10/01 1:44 pm, Michael Beck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't know, but if had a super-cool grid class,
>I certainly would like the copyright to protect me from anyone
>buying my grid, creating a subclass, and then marketing it against
>me.
Unless they distribute your code without negot
> -Original Message-
> From: Angelo Schneider
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 08:12
> http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html
> >
>
> That case is not about derived work but about "plain" copyright
> infringement.
> Derived work is something different.
Hi all!
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> > For copyright law is only one thing interesting:
> > If you look at the piece of "derived work", can you still see the
> > original work?
>
> I would argue that it is sufficient that the original class "assumes a concrete
> or permanent form" in the derived cla
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 06:06
> Every implementation of the Java language contains the
> non-abstract class
> java.util.Properties, which does in fact implement all the methods of
> Dictionary.
> So let us
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Arromdee
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 00:11
> When you derive a class, you're creating a copy of the
> original class *on your
> machine*. That doesn't mean that if you write code that
> derives a class, and
> distribute the code, you're distributing
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Gray
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 05:21
Chris, thanks for your email. That was a very good reading.
> Yes, java.util.Dictionary is abstract (and contains only
> abstract methods), so
> any non-abstract class derived from it will need to override
> a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:26
> For copyright law is only one thing interesting:
> If you look at the piece of "derived work", can you still see the
> original work?
I would argue that it is sufficient that the original class "assum
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 23:40
> The text of Bob's code is not cut and paste, it is not
> plagerism, yada yada.
It doesn't have to be Cut & Paste. Please see Micro Star v. FormGen:
http://eon.law.harvard.e
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:19
> > > > 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?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Above is only ONE implementation lsited, and
> java.util.Dictionary is not
> abstract but the base class.
According to my knowledge, it is an abstract class. See:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.3/docs/api/java/util/Dictionary.html
http://www.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 02:20
> This is german and in most EU countries law.
> For germany "Urheberrechtsgesetz".
> E.g. www.recht.de, follow links to "Urheberrechtsgesetz".
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything specific. If you c
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:48
> you draw a blueprint for a lovely two story colonial house.
> You copyright the blueprint.
> I buy a copy of the blueprint from you.
> I look at your blueprint, and I go and
> draw a blueprint for a l
On Sun, 21 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [blah blah blah]
> I am not sure that I followed your example.
you draw a blueprint for a lovely two story colonial house.
You copyright the blueprint.
I buy a copy of the blueprint from you.
I look at your blueprin
Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Myers
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:14
>
> > > 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 c
Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 08:54
>
> > If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then
> > whose implementation
> > of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
> > - GNU Clas
On Sunday 21 October 2001 06:13 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 22:24
> >
> > Deriving a new class is equivalent to linking to an API. No
> > question about
> > it. Just examine the m
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 00:05
> I'm afraid that you're mixing a copyrightable "work" with a
> nice "idea".
> The work, Alice's database,
> and the idea, all databases,
> does not prevent Bob from using Alices code, and writing code
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Michael Beck wrote:
> When you derive a class, you are creating a copy of the original class. When you
> make changes to the new class, you are creating a "derivative work", the same
> way as you would do it by making changes to a copy of book, copy of a picture,
> copy of a h
On Sun, 21 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
> I am afraid, you are mixing "class", and "interface" concepts here. Class is a
> "design blueprint", similar in its function to "chip design" or "architectural
> design", and as s
On Sun, 21 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > [snip] [back to Michael]
> "Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed
> by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be
> per
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:38
> I'm not insisting on that.
So can we agree that a class is a copyrighted entity?
> I of course of the oposite opinion, I only liked to point out:
> After you have creat
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 22:24
> Deriving a new class is equivalent to linking to an API. No
> question about
> it. Just examine the mechanism. If anything, inheritance creates an
> additional level of ind
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 21:43
>
> The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am
> unsure who posted the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but
> if that person could obtain clearance to post
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 08:54
> If I write a class which extends java.util.Dictionary, then
> whose implementation
> of java.util.Dictionary am I adapting:
> - GNU Classpath's?
> - Kaffe's?
> - Sun's?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 21:54
> Licenses should not be in a position to influence how an
> application is
> designed. But if the above interpretation really is that of
> the FSF, then the
> LGPL would be
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 00:06
> you are attempting to excercise a right that Copyright Law
> does not grant you.
> you are using words that have double meanings that are
> separate and distinct
> in their two fields, i.e. "derived"
> -Original Message-
> From: Angelo Schneider
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:32
> APIs and even data base schemata (what you get after executing a
> sequence of SQL create table statements) are explicitly noted as: not
> copyright able, not patent able, not trademark able.
That's in
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Myers
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 09:14
> > 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 copie
> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 23:52
> The bigger issue (in my opinion) is why the LGPL treats inheritance
> differently from composition. Why is a direct function call
> different than an indirect function call through a vtable?
Because one
raised in the question, here.
Rod
-Original Message-
From: "Angelo Schneider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 10/19/01 9:33:08 AM
Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
Hi al
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> In Germany dynamic linking is: "derived work".
Please refer me to the law which claims that.
> Programs using a GPLed library are derived from that library because
> they LINK with it. Not becasue the call routines from it. (In germany no
> one wou
Hi all!
Rob Myers wrote:
[...]
>
> Out of curiosity could function/method names be trademarked to regulate
> their calling? :-)
In europe not.
APIs and even data base schemata (what you get after executing a
sequence of SQL create table statements) are explicitly noted as: not
copyright able,
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 ori
Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Angelo Schneider
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 05:33
>
> > As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
> > derived work.
> > "derived work" is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
> > your license.
>
Hi all!
This is indeed a very good post!
It exactly brings to the point what I seemed to have failed in :-(
Ok, seemy three comments below :-)
William Uther wrote:
>
> >
> Hi,
> I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd
> try an analogy. Not sure if this will h
OOP!!!
Sorry, my bad.
There's four >'s in front of your name, but
the text below it has three >'s, so the quote
should go to Michael?
not even sure anymore. my cut and paste sucks on this machine.
but it was quite misleading.
Sorry again.
Greg
On Thu, 18 October 2001, David Johnson wrote
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 16 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > The issue is that
> > when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it
> > will be "used as is", an
On Tue, 16 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> The issue is that
> when I release something under OpenSource, I want to make sure that it will be
> "used as is", and if there is any derivative work, it will benefit the
> community, i.e. it
On Thursday 18 October 2001 08:20 pm, William Uther wrote:
> One could argue that in the second case the overlay is merely USING the
> original picture, and that the original picture can be copied because of
> its license. I suspect that a court would rule that you have a derived
> work here.
Hi,
I lurk on the list. I've been skimming the conversation. I thought I'd
try an analogy. Not sure if this will help or not. I am not a lawyer, nor
do I really know copyright law very well. Feel free to ignore :).
Imagine person A creates a picture. Person B comes along and makes an
On Thursday 18 October 2001 09:04 am, Michael Beck wrote:
> Why are in insisting that "deriving a new class" is equal to "linking to an
> API"? Unless you believe that a class cannot be copyrighted, please see the
> class as a copyrighted entity, the same way as you see a book.
Deriving a new cl
On Thursday 18 October 2001 12:21 am, Michael Beck wrote:
> > Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
> > libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
> > applications that are
> > under different licenses and which of subclassed some KDE
> > classes (kwin,
>
Angelo Scneider wrote:
> As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
> derived work.
> "derived work" is a legal term. You can not redefine it in your license.
>
I didn't say I agreed with the FSF/RMS interpretation, I just mentioned
what I remember it to be.
One of th
Hi all!
This a very good answer as it shows where the common missunderstanding
resides!
Please see below.
Michael Beck wrote:
>
> > Von: Michael Beck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > From: Angelo Schneider
>
> > As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
> > derived wor
> -Original Message-
> From: Angelo Schneider
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 05:33
> As I pointed out allready: linking to an API is not, I repeat: not a
> derived work.
> "derived work" is a legal term. You can not redefine it in
> your license.
Why are in insisting that "deriving a
Hi all!
"Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
>
> >
> > The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
> > the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
> > to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the us
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 23:34
> Now that's a truly scary thought if you think about it. The KDE core
> libraries are under the LGPL, but there are many KDE
> applications that are
> under different license
> The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted
> the comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance
> to post the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use
> of inheritance constitutes the creation of a deriva
The discussion on this topic has been very interesting. I am unsure who posted the
comment about the lawyers at FSF, but if that person could obtain clearance to post
the complete explanation on why FSF has taken the position that the use of inheritance
constitutes the creation of a derivative
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 19:05
> I've been watching the exchange on this topic with interest.
Great, finally a lawyer here!
> While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more
> thorough analysis
> of
on 17/10/01 2:34 pm, Angelo Schneider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In Germany dynamic linking is: "derived work".
> Its up to your lisence if you allow it.
>
> Inheritance is NOT, NOWHERE, NEVER a "derived work".
>
> However incorporating the derived class plus the base class into a piece
> of
Hi all!
The FSF is incorrect.
However your extract and the talk with the FSF might have been
missleading, see below.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> >
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> > While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis
> > of the situation from th
[ Apologies if multiple copies were sent -- mail server problems ]
Michael Beck wrote:
> I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that "inheritance is considered
^^^
> modifying the library" (see below). My question was related to releasing code
[...]
>
On Tuesday 16 October 2001 03:22 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
> I just got a response from FSF lawyers stating that "inheritance is
> considered modifying the library" (see below). My question was related to
> releasing code under LGPL and wanted to make sure that I've interpreted
> correctly the diff
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> While the FSF *may* be correct, I would expect a more thorough analysis
> of the situation from them before I accept their conclusion. In
> particular, how does inheritance differ in a substantive and legally
> significant way from traditional subro
iginal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 3:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[E
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 00:19
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Is inherited class a derivative work?
>
> That said, inherited classes are not derivative
On Sunday 14 October 2001 11:21 pm, Michael Beck wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 16:40
> >
> > A derivative work must contain at least portions of the
> > original work.
>
> The new inherited class ex
Angelo Schneider scripsit:
> In source code this means: portions of the original source code must be
> present.
I repeat: this falls down on the question of translations. Translate
a piece of Java code into Prolog, none of the original text will survive,
but it is most definitely a derivative w
2001 13:43:42
> > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Betreff: RE: Is inherited class a derivative work?
> > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
> >
> "Michael Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
"Michael Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Derived class is a "derivative work", because it is "based" on, or "extends",
> the original class. "Using" would be instantiating an object from it -
> stand-alone, or as a part of another class (composition). There would be no
> "adaptation" of the ex
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 11:48
Greg,
thanks for your comments.
> first of all, you're mixing USE (inherit)
> with MODIFY. A derived class is not a modification
> of the original.
Derived class is a "der
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 16:40
> A derivative work must contain at least portions of the
> original work.
The new inherited class extends the original class, i.e. it contains
(implicitly) the whole base c
David Johnson scripsit:
> A derivative work must contain at least portions of the original work.
I know what you mean, but that's poorly worded. Translations, for example,
don't contain any literal portion of the original, but are paradigm cases
of derivative works.
> Dependency alone does no
On Saturday 13 October 2001 03:54 am, Michael Beck wrote:
> We have a discussion going on internally about inheritance. Some people
> believe that when you subclass/inherit/derive a new class, you are creating
> a "derivative work" in the copyright sense, especially when you override
> existing me
Michael Beck wrote:
> Some people believe that when you subclass a new class,
> you are creating a "derivative work" in the copyright sense,
> especially when you override existing methods.
> The scary scenario is that somebody will inherit a
> class, make some modifications to it, and then cl
93 matches
Mail list logo
