undefined | Better HN

0 pointssimiones2y ago0 comments

The GPL can't really overwrite the legal definition of derivative work, even if it wanted to. Of course, there is little case law actually going into the weeds, so it's hard to say for sure. However, the GPL's definition seems pretty reasonable to me as to what would constitute a derived work (anything linking with the GPL work OR anything passing very very complex structures between itself and the GPL work).

In fact, I suspect that a legal definition of exactly what constitutes a derived work of a program may be more broad than the GPL's definition. For example, it's plausible to me that a program which calls `sh` as a fundamental part of its functioning could be found to represent a derivative work of `sh` per copyright laws.

0 comments

zigzag3122y ago

Hmm, maybe didn't use the correct term when I said "derivative work".

What term defines the scope to which copyleft applies to?

simionesOP2y ago

I think derived work or derivative work are the right terms. However, "copyleft" is not a legal term, and it is copyright law (and associated jurisprudence) that defines what constitutes a derived work of some original. Licenses then control what the copyright holder allows you to do with their works or derivatives.

So, only copyright law itself can say whether, for example, this comment I'm making is a derived work of your own comment, or if it is an original work of my own. If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment I'm making and you can choose to write a license that allows me to distribute it or nor or whatever else. If it is not a derived work, then I am the copyright holder, and I don't require any license from you to distribute this comment.

So, if copyright law were to say "a computer program A is a derived work of program B if and only if it is produced from the same source code of A or textual modifications of the code of A" (very implausible, but just for the sake of argument), then there would be no difference between the GPL and the LGPL, and you could freely link to a GPL program and distribute the result under a proprietary license (you'd still have to distribute the source code of the original GPL program, of course).

kelnos2y ago

> If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment

Is that correct? I am also not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me.

If I make something that is a derived work of some other copyrighted work, my understanding is that I still own the copyright on the parts of the final work that I made (assuming what I made meets the thresholds for being copyrightable). But I am not permitted to distribute that work unless I receive a license to do so from the owner of the work I've derived from.

My understanding seems to dovetail with how the GPL works. If I write a program that links to a GPL library, and that does indeed cause my program to become a derived work of the GPL library, I still own the copyright to my program. In order to distribute my program, I have to abide by the terms of the GPL. But even if I were to violate the terms of the GPL (thus terminating my rights under the GPL), I still would not lose my copyright interest in the program I wrote, only my right to distribute it.

1 more reply

zigzag3122y ago

So, derivative work term in copyright law defines the scope only as binary all or nothing? It's always a whole product that is considered derived, never just part of a product.

And license itself can then limit the scope of copyleft, so that it applies it to only a specific part of a work.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

zigzag3122y ago

Hmm, maybe didn't use the correct term when I said "derivative work".

What term defines the scope to which copyleft applies to?

simionesOP2y ago

kelnos2y ago

> If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment

Is that correct? I am also not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me.

1 more reply

zigzag3122y ago

So, derivative work term in copyright law defines the scope only as binary all or nothing? It's always a whole product that is considered derived, never just part of a product.

And license itself can then limit the scope of copyleft, so that it applies it to only a specific part of a work.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse