On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 15:47, Walter Landry wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 00:19, Anthony Towns wrote: > > >> Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail > > >> to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not. > > > > > > Because the preparation of derivative works is one of the exclusive > > > rights of copyright holders. Please read 17 USC 106 (2) again. > > > > Yet again, it is not enough to cite 17 USC 106 (2), without citing 17 > > USC 107 and the caselaw based on 17 USC 107. > > > > Anthony is quite reasonable in presuming that the current > > interpretation of "Fair Use" applies to cases where there is no > > copying taking place. You are free to disagree, but merely citing 106 > > is not sufficient. > > In particular, I thought there was court precedent holding that it is > ok for people using proprietary programs to swap patches with each > other. It wouldn't make much sense to be able to swap patches if you > couldn't apply them.
I would be surprised at this. Please give me a cite. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson