4 ms·

I think there's a compelling argument to be made for bug fixes and small changes being derivative works of the originally licensed open source software. As such

I think there's a compelling argument to be made for bug fixes and small changes being derivative works of the originally licensed open source software. As such, it's unlikely that the 'copyright' of those small changes would be able to stand on their own. Perhaps 'derivative works' isn't the right term. I know there's some exceptions for copyright when there's 'one way' to do something, or something that substantially is not a creative work, such as a function that adds two numbers.

yebyen 3y ago
You might be thinking of the "obviousness test" for patents. If an invention is a combination of two things which are established prior art, and there is a suggestion, teaching, or motivation which any person could discover through straightforward analysis of the existing prior art, then it's not a patentable innovation. There being one right way to solve a problem, doesn't really change whether a bit is copied or not. If you have a bug and there's one right way to solve the issue, then you don't need to copy the original. You can reproduce the bug and solve the issue, and any similarity between the independent solutions is coincidental. If you take the source code and accept the new license terms, I think you'll be bound by the terms. I am not a lawyer and I haven't read the full text of the BUSL-1.1 but I will now, since that's probably the best way to understand what the license does or does not do.