<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ttw+drupal@cobbled.net">ttw+drupal@cobbled.net</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20070910153509.GA26657@holyman.cobbled.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
...the term "derivative work" is
not clearly defined within law and is thus open to interpretation.
your interpretation is clearly one that suits your political ends and,
in my opinion, is not only morally wrong but one that is legally
untenable under US and European law.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As for European law I don't know but Wikipedia claims there's such a
definition what US law is concerned:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work</a><br>
<br>
..."derivative work" is defined in <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_17_of_the_United_States_Code"
title="Title 17 of the United States Code">17 U.S.C.</a> <a
href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html"
class="external text"
title="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html" rel="nofollow">§ 101</a>:
<blockquote>
<p>A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
There are futher legal references in the same article. Also considering
the number of references to "derivative work" in software licenses and
contracts, I very much doubt the term is undefined in common legal
practice.<br>
<br>
The Wikipedia article agrees with you on one point and that is
regarding software:<br>
<br>
"The definition of derivative works of software is not entirely clear<a
href="http://community.linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/117247&tid=87&tid=41&tid=12&tid=42"
class="external autonumber"
title="http://community.linux.com/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/117247&tid=87&tid=41&tid=12&tid=42"
rel="nofollow">[5]</a>" [1]<br>
<br>
However this article is just one of many sources and I'd rather rely on
a legal dictionary than Wikipedia to bring some real clarity.<br>
<br>
Further, the "rule of thumb" definition re softwate in the Wikipedia
article [1] seems to support Thomas point of view since it only allows
exception of the "derivative work" rule for applications that serve as
plugins and use functions in a library. Since Drupal is not a library
and a module is not a plugin the logical outcome is given; a module
must be considered "derivative work" and is therefore subject to GPL.
You'd have to challenge those two premises to criticize the conclusion
Thomas has drawn.<br>
<br>
Further discussion can be found here:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm">http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm</a><br>
<br>
I think the mud-slinging is regrettable and sad. Please stick to the
point and quote sources instead of being inflammatory. We don't need a
flamewar. I've never seen a flamewar leading to anything good.<br>
<br>
Since the whole discussion apparently boils down to this definition and
the challenging of it, and there's no sign of agreement in sight, we'll
need an arbitrator and Lawrence Rosen seems to be a candidate.<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Derivative_work_of_software">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Derivative_work_of_software</a><br>
</body>
</html>