Derivative works and copyright.

Xyne · 2009-09-13 17:07:54

The Kahel OS thread (search for it, I'm not linking) raised a lot of issues, one of which was the Kahel OS team's effective rebranding of Arch Linux without any apparently significant underlying changes. In particular, the default Arch copyright notice (© Judd & Aaron, etc) was replaced using scripts in their git repo to display the following:

After some thought though I started to wonder what is actually copyrighted. Is it "Arch Linux" itself (which is what I thought)? Why aren't there more copyright notices there, such as one about Linus Torvalds & Co. and the Linux kernel? Is it just the initscripts that are copyrighted? If so, were they written from scratch by Judd and Aaron alone?

Essentially the question is this: at what point does a derivative work become one's own? Obviously there is no clear line such as "30% difference in the code base" or some other such metric, but there must be some general if abstract criteria. In the case of Kahel OS, most people seem to immediately see it as taking credit for the work of others (myself included). The same cannot be said of Ubuntu (unless you use Debian ).

I realize that there is no definitive answer to this but discussing it should make the question at least a bit clearer.

Note that I am not implying either that Arch has done something wrong or that Kahel OS has done something right.

Last edited by Xyne (2009-09-13 17:10:15)

Acecero · 2009-09-13 17:46:59

I think the "Arch Linux" name is trademarked. How can initscripts be copyrighted, if you can write your own?

My opinion of a derivative work becoming one's own is modifying the work till the point it has no longer resemblance of the original. This way it follows their own philosophical ways without having to be an exact copy of someone's work. What would be the point if all they did was took someones else work and call it their own? That adds zero contribution or even improvement to follow the GPL. That's why they did IT wrong.

Pierre · 2009-09-13 17:52:15

Of course the initscripts are copyrighted and everything else someone does and which is not really trivial. And you wont loose that copyright. And you as the copyright holder can giver others permission to do what ever you think (license). But you still have the copyright.

Afaik what they actually did might be conform to the GPL as it does not have some advertising rule.

Acecero · 2009-09-13 18:25:07

Pierre wrote:

Of course the initscripts are copyrighted and everything else someone does and which is not really trivial. And you wont loose that copyright. And you as the copyright holder can giver others permission to do what ever you think (license). But you still have the copyright.
Afaik what they actually did might be conform to the GPL as it does not have some advertising rule.

That's good to know about the initscripts.

After reading GPL v2, you are correct.

GPL v2 wrote:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above...
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Dusty · 2009-09-13 19:08:17

I think any argument that might come up would have to do with defining the word 'conspicuously.'

wooptoo · 2009-09-13 21:18:41

Xyne wrote:

I realize that there is no definitive answer to this ...

The answer is common sense.

Xyne · 2009-09-13 21:27:08

wooptoo wrote:

Xyne wrote:
I realize that there is no definitive answer to this ...
The answer is common sense.

Thank you for that insightful contribution. Obviously I had been confused by the infinitude of intricacies that such a question might engender. Silly me for overthinking it. Tell me, is this the same common sense that one uses in the application of the Miller test and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

There is no such thing as common sense, only a multitude of preconceptions of what it should be. Considering how often you come across remarks to the effect that common sense is not at all common, anything which relies on the presumption it its existence is bound to fail miserably eventually.

Duologic · 2009-09-13 21:45:49

Copyright and GPL stuff seems to be all legal, so isn't it more about the respect towards the community? We all talk about how much work the dev's put into Arch Linux and its repo's, which is giving them credentials and respect for the effort.

If the community looses its well deserved respect, it looses its strength and will to continue. OR they will just block the one who is not respecting them.

Last edited by Duologic (2009-09-13 21:46:56)

Arch Linux

#1 2009-09-13 17:07:54

Derivative works and copyright.

#2 2009-09-13 17:46:59

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#3 2009-09-13 17:52:15

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#4 2009-09-13 18:25:07

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#5 2009-09-13 19:08:17

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#6 2009-09-13 21:18:41

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#7 2009-09-13 21:27:08

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

#8 2009-09-13 21:45:49

Re: Derivative works and copyright.

Board footer