On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:18:39 PST, David Schwartz said:
> The right to distribute derived works is not an *additional* right
> to the *original* work. It is subsumed under the rights to create
> derived works and the right to distribute the original work. Of
> course, you also need the rights to the new content in the derived
> work. If anyone can cite a law or case precedent to the contrary,
> please do. Otherwise, I maintain that there is no special right to
> distribute derived works. This does not exist as a distinct right
> under copyright law in any country I know of.
At least in the US:
17 USC 106 says:
Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
So you don't even get the right to *CREATE* a derivative work unless it's
explicitly given to you. So you're back to the GPL (clause 2) -
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
You can slice-and-dice *YOUR* copy to your heart's content, but if you
distribute it, you have to abide by the conditions. Note that at least
in the US, the submission of patches is probably covered by 17 USC 107,
which is the "fair use" clause - patches are obviously "criticism or comment" ;)
-- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:44 EST