Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> [...]
> > >  - a critic's book about the original is not a derived piece 
> > > of work. It
> > > is clearly specific to the original book but does not 
> modify it and
> > > clearly does not combine with it to form a single piece of work.
> > >    (no real equivalent to this one, closest thing would be an
> > > application/script that uses another, like a script that 
> calls 'ls')
> > 
> > This is not all clear IMHO. What a single piece of work is not
> > well defined. Sure a combined work will not be a book since a book
> > normally is something that can be read in linear order and combining
> > with  the critisism will not likely form a normal linear book.
> > 
> > However, just because it doesn't combine to something normal
> > doesn't mean that is doesn't combine.
> 
>    And how does it combine exactly? Both the book and the critic are
> available independently. 
>
> You can still read the book 
> independently from
> the critic so they are obviously two separate pieces of work, not a
> single one.
> 
>    Or how do you define 'combine'?

I do not define combine in any general way. It depend on what my intent
is and on the circumstances. I do not expect others to nessarily define
combine in the same way either.

However, the problem is that you (or rather the law) must define what
combine means for your: 
"Can't legally distribute, is derived work"
to have any meaning.
 
> [...]
> > > 
> > >    From my point of view open-source is not any different from any
> > > commercial work. Obviously there are legal means to obtain 
> > > the original
> > > work in both cases (whether you have to pay for it is irrelevant).
> > > Otherwise the point is moot.
> > >
> > >    But saying that open-source is different would mean that 
> > > because you
> > > are not making a direct profit from this work, you are 
> not entitled to
> > > any protection under copyright law. You can't mean that, can you?
> > 
> > But you _have_ protection from copyright, everybody that 
> _distribute_ your
> > work must fullfill the license otherwise you can sue them.
> 
>    So you agree that gratis, open-source and commercial works are all
> entitled to the same copyright protection. The last two paragraphs of
> your email seemed to imply differently to me.

Yes, it is entitled to the _same_ copyright protection.

However since you give away your work gratis to the end user by
your free choice, you have the right to stop doing this(1),
if anything I sell to the end user bothers you.

(1) Of course you, by your free choice, choose to give the end user the
right to redistribute as well so, he can legally give it to his "friends"
all other the world, but that is not my problem either.

Note that I not saying that your choice was wrong, but you shouldn't
complain that rights that you gave up by _free_ choice have been
used against you.