Legal/Permission Question

[Brad Roberts]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Dan wrote:

> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:38:44 -0400
> From: Dan <murpsoft at hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: digitalmars.D <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>
> To: digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
> Newsgroups: digitalmars.D
> Subject: Re: Legal/Permission Question
> 
> Frits van Bommel Wrote:
> 
> > Dan wrote:
> > > http://dsource.org/projects/browse/branches/1.9/source/
> > 
> > That should probably be 
> > http://dsource.org/projects/walnut/browser/branches/1.9/source
> 
> Not wanting to offend, but hold on a second here.  In accordance with the resource specified for Software Copyright Law on the Wikipedia website,
> http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
> 
> Simple Case:
> "If you take the copyrighted source code of any program and physically modify it – actually revise the program or translate it into another computer language – you have created a derivative work"
> 
> First Edge Case:
> "Here’s how I would decide in the edge cases that I described above:
> 
> ·         The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program.  If not, then I would argue that there is not a derivative work."
> 
> So in the case of Walnut 2.x, as I did not take someone elses code and modify it, but rather wrote a new program from scratch while analyzing the shortcomings of similar programs; it does not constitute a derivative work.
> 
> Iff we can all agree that it is a version 2.x, and not a 1.x (continuation and modification of the original work) and nothing is copied forward.
> 
> For the existing code-base, *I* believe it is most definitely a case of rewriting in light of.  If I were to adopt Walter's methods for Walnut 2.x, it would most probably be crossing or standing on that line.
> 
> Given that, and by your (Walter's) examination of the code in this light, is Walnut 1.9-2.x a derivative work as it stands?
> 
> If Walnut 2.x is not as-of-yet a derivative work, then by discontinuing the examination of Walter's code while writing the methods (a part that would typically be very similar between implementations of ECMAScript regardless) I would be continuing to perform a new work in conformance with ECMA-262.
> 
> If we disagree on whether Walnut 2.x is derivative, then I will remove it from the website and cease development.
> 
> Thanks, Dan.

This thread has long since left the realm of usefulness.  The only 
authority on the legalness of what constitutes a derived work is the legal 
system itself.  If you want a binding answer, you can't get one from us.

In this specific case, the only person that has any standing to assert any 
claims of infringement would be Walter and I suggest you work with him 
privately.  No one else here can give an authoritve answer.

Later,
Brad