Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:I think I more or less agree with all you've said, except that I agree with H.G.Muller in that I believe the GPL doesn't attempt to redefine a derived work, but simply attempts to clarify what applicable law is likely to consider one. I'm guessing the "that is to say" has some established meaning in legal writing that makes that clear.
I can agree that it does seem to be an attempt to clarify what "derivative work" means "under copyright law." But it's very confusing - what if their "clarification" is actually a completely different definition from the applicable local law? Or is "derivative work" defined in broadly the same way everywhere?
Rybka clearly does not follow the GPL with respect to Fruit, so for me the question is if Rybka is a derivative work from Fruit, and indeed the right thing to do would be to contact the FSF with details why this is the case (or not).
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
I can agree that it does seem to be an attempt to clarify what "derivative work" means "under copyright law." But it's very confusing - what if their "clarification" is actually a completely different definition from the applicable local law? Or is "derivative work" defined in broadly the same way everywhere?
There are some big international agreements about copyright, so I'd hope it does boil approximately down to the same thing in most places.
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
I can agree that it does seem to be an attempt to clarify what "derivative work" means "under copyright law." But it's very confusing - what if their "clarification" is actually a completely different definition from the applicable local law? Or is "derivative work" defined in broadly the same way everywhere?
There are some big international agreements about copyright, so I'd hope it does boil approximately down to the same thing in most places.
If that holds true for French and/or Russian law, it's not looking good for Vas...
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
If that holds true for French and/or Russian law, it's not looking good for Vas...
While many suspect there is something frutish about the fish it's going to be a different matter entirely to prove beyond reasonable doubt due to the total rewrite.
Zach points out a few things that look suspecious, though I'm not clever enough to follow the details.. piece square tbs that are the same yet they have different values, open/end scaling that is taken from fruit yet is done differently etc. The case looks pretty weak overall to me but then one portion of copied may be all that is needed.
Perhaps the whole thing falls on the statute of limitations. The limit is 2 years for a misdemeanor according to wiki.