[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Marc Lavallée]

Le 20 Juin 2006 22:38, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Marc Lavallée wrote:
> > Is a patch using [expr] like a derivative work? I don't think so. A
> > derivative work is more like a "new version" of something. "1+1", even
> > calculated with a GPL software and saved within a patch is not a
> > derivative work.
>
> Derivative work according to GPL includes anything made with GPL
> libraries.
> If you can make [expr] run in another process, you might have an
> effective means of circumventing the GPL. =)

The term "derivative work" is defined in the copyright law, not in the GPL. 
Here's an article about this:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
And the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Modifying a software does create a derivative work. Static linking also 
create a derivative work. But using a software never create derivative 
works. A PD patch could be interpreted by some other software, like a tiff 
image created with the Gimp could be opened and modified using Photoshop.

> > work. A picture retouched with the Gimp is a derivative work of the
> > original picture, not of the Gimp.
>
> It's not a suitable analogy because the picture doesn't contain a copy of
> the Gimp.

Just like a patch using [expr] does not contains a copy of [expr].

-- 
Marc