4 ms·

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

by tomp 12y ago

pritambaral 12y ago
Just a note for others: antires is talking about 'License', and tomp is talking about 'Copyright'.
- mnarayan01 12y ago
  It appears (IANAL) that Monit is alleging a copyright violation which would be eliminated if the License was followed, thus the two words can probably be used interchangeably.
- stonemetal 12y ago
  I am not sure I get your meaning. A license is how you access a copyrighted work. Therefore they are speaking about the same set of laws. Antirez is taking a very narrow copying must include a figurative Ctrl-c Ctrl-v. Where as tomp is taking the wider and I think more legally supported(at least as far as art goes) stance that a work can be 100% your own effort but still be a derivative work if it was inspired by an existing work.(i.e. taking a photo of a sculpture is a derivative work )
zenciadam 12y ago
If the work meets the established criteria regarding transformative changes, then it can be considered its own. Rewriting a program in a new language is a large change in its own right; even more so, if it it uses features in the new language which were unavailable in the original.
wpietri 12y ago
Analogies between novels and code bases are misleading. For the former, the consumer experiences the copyrighted material directly. For the latter, many different expressions (which are protected) result in the same effect (which is not). That Inspeqtor works with Monit configuration files is definitely not proof of copyright violation. Neither an admission of "heavy influence". As far as I know, the only thing that would prove that this is a derivative work (and therefore possibly a copyright violation) would be a comparison of the source code, one demonstrating a number of features in the Inspeqtor code base that show that Inspeqtor's implementor was doing something more like a port to Go than a compatible implementation. That's sure not part of the takedown. From the way it's worded, I worry that Monit's authors are not totally clear on the distinction between patents and copyrights, and that they have not taken the advice of a competent IP attorney before taking this step.
Zikes 12y ago
Say I wrote a story about a young orphan boy who meets a mysterious stranger that reveals to him that he has magical powers and must now go defeat a villain with shocking connections to his parents, what would you say? And if I called that story Star Wars?
- mentat 12y ago
  Which in turn is derived (on purpose) from the various sources as composed together by Joseph Campbell in "Hero with a Thousand Faces". Narrative is even more absurd to call duplicate than a totally new implementation in a different computer language.

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

by tomp 12y ago

If you rewrite Harry Potter in a different script, language, or some plot twists, it's still "derived work".

pritambaral 12y ago

Just a note for others: antires is talking about 'License', and tomp is talking about 'Copyright'.

mnarayan01 12y ago
It appears (IANAL) that Monit is alleging a copyright violation which would be eliminated if the License was followed, thus the two words can probably be used interchangeably.
stonemetal 12y ago
I am not sure I get your meaning. A license is how you access a copyrighted work. Therefore they are speaking about the same set of laws. Antirez is taking a very narrow copying must include a figurative Ctrl-c Ctrl-v. Where as tomp is taking the wider and I think more legally supported(at least as far as art goes) stance that a work can be 100% your own effort but still be a derivative work if it was inspired by an existing work.(i.e. taking a photo of a sculpture is a derivative work )

zenciadam 12y ago

If the work meets the established criteria regarding transformative changes, then it can be considered its own. Rewriting a program in a new language is a large change in its own right; even more so, if it it uses features in the new language which were unavailable in the original.

wpietri 12y ago

Analogies between novels and code bases are misleading. For the former, the consumer experiences the copyrighted material directly. For the latter, many different expressions (which are protected) result in the same effect (which is not). That Inspeqtor works with Monit configuration files is definitely not proof of copyright violation. Neither an admission of "heavy influence". As far as I know, the only thing that would prove that this is a derivative work (and therefore possibly a copyright violation) would be a comparison of the source code, one demonstrating a number of features in the Inspeqtor code base that show that Inspeqtor's implementor was doing something more like a port to Go than a compatible implementation. That's sure not part of the takedown. From the way it's worded, I worry that Monit's authors are not totally clear on the distinction between patents and copyrights, and that they have not taken the advice of a competent IP attorney before taking this step.

Zikes 12y ago

Say I wrote a story about a young orphan boy who meets a mysterious stranger that reveals to him that he has magical powers and must now go defeat a villain with shocking connections to his parents, what would you say? And if I called that story Star Wars?

mentat 12y ago
Which in turn is derived (on purpose) from the various sources as composed together by Joseph Campbell in "Hero with a Thousand Faces". Narrative is even more absurd to call duplicate than a totally new implementation in a different computer language.