On 26/07/10 23:58, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
If that were so, then you could evade the GPL completely by distributing modified source code in the form of the original unmodified source code plus a small program to patch it (not diff files, since those will contain the contents of removed lines). Along with an unmodified binary, together with a program to patch it just before runtime. Do you think this is correct? That would sure break the idea of copyleft to pieces.
Yes, that's correct.
Such a work might not "contain" any of the creative work that went into making the original software, if you construe "contain" in a very literal sense.
The law does have a preference for the literal.
But it is completely dependent on the original creativity. Without the creativity of the original author, the modified work could not meaningfully exist -- it is an extension of the original work, not something independent.
I don't think that argument is particularly convincing. A review of a movie is completely dependent on the creative content of the movie, that doesn't mean the copyright holders of the movie have the right to restrict the distribution of the review.
This is what makes it a derivative work in the view of the lawyers employed by the FSF and SFLC, inter alia. (I wonder what Wikimedia's counsel thinks.)
The FSF and SFLC have agendas. They make implausible arguments and justify them by the ends they achieve. I'll believe their interpretation when it's upheld in court.
-- Tim Starling