On 20 Mar 2005 at 18:50, rhkramer03 wrote:
> In my understanding, something completely rewritten would be a new
> (i.e., non-derivative work). Leaving verbatim quotes of portions of
> the old version would be subject to fair use and require
> attribution.

> Am I off base?

Something complete rewritten may or may not be a derivative work.
Suppose you write a new novel about a hardboiled detective named
Mike who can never keep a "Girl Friday" working for him very long so
he figures it's easier to call them all Velma? I think most readers would
realize that it's supposed to be Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer.

On the other hand, when Brown Bag Software cloned 1-2-3, the code
was all new, and Lotus thought it easier to nail them under trademark
law.

When something is both completely new and at the same time inspired
by something old, whether it's a derivative work is the kind of question
that make lawyers rich.

> Nevertheless, rewriting everything to avoid the need for attribution
> seems somewhat unfair in not giving credit to those whose work you
> may be building on, which is why, on WikiLearn, I try to maintain a
> "Contributors" section, with the idea that contributors to an older
> version continue to be acknowledged there even if there contribution
> has been completely rewritten (or excised).

It's pretty obvious that intellectual property law makes *everyone*
unhappy. I steal a 25c loaf of stale bread from the supermarket and
the government will prosecute it criminally. If the supermarket steals
$5,000 of my intellectual property, I have to sue their breeches off at
my expense, because the federal prosecutor figures that anything
under $10,000 in losses isn't worth his time and trouble. That's hardly
"equal protection of the laws".





--
AmishHosting.Com

Lots of space.
Lots of bandwidth.
Lots of speed.
Lots of reliability.
Lots of support.
Lots of preinstalled scripts.
Not a lot of money.