[ On Thu, December 18, 1997 at 10:41:47 (-0500), Christopher R. Bowman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: PKG: ncurses status
>
> I haven't seen the ncurses copyright, but typically the liscense that
> goes with these packages seeks to make a contract with the user, it
> gives you the right to use the source according to the terms that
> the liscense sets forth, and in return you agreed that your derivative
> work will be covered either by the same liscense or other terms set
> forth in the liscense.  Are you trying to argue that patches do not
> constitute a derivative work?  Thought I am not a lawyer I know of
> no legal precedent that establishes this.  Further I think that a
> resonable legal argument could be made that patches are a derivative work.

I haven't looked at the ncurses copyright either, but assuming that the
original package continues to be freely available in source form then I
just can't see what the big stink can be about.

Patches, alone, do not (IMO, but I'm not alone) constitute a derivative
work unless they are very very extensive and would drastically alter the
form of the original work.  I thought we settled this silly debate on
Usenet over a decade ago.

Patches are, at worst, fair use of the original work, and at best totally
unrelated to the copyright status of the original work.

Arguing this point for freeware (i.e. software that the author(s)
make(s) freely available and distributes without charge) is so ludicrous
and so stupid as to be insanely funny.

In theory even minor patches against a commercial package (at least one
*NOT* covered by trade secret protection, but only copyright license)
would still be OK.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 443-1734			VE3TCP			robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets Of The Weird <woods@weird.com>