On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh Lord. Deep breath. Please, please, please read to the end of this > one before responding to each line on the fly.
Done. > The GPL contains one, and only one, _definition_ of the phrase "work > based on the Program". (The word Program, capitalized, is defined > previously.) That _definition_, in its entirety, is: > > <definition> > a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any > derivative work under copyright law > </definition> I disagree. You know I disagree. I believe the definition continues until the end of that sentence. > This definition emphasizes that "derivative work", which is in any > case a phrase with a defined legal meaning, is to have its meaning > under copyright law in the applicable jurisdiction and _no_other_. > Each and every time the phrase "work[s] based on the Program" appears > in the text of the GPL, it means this and only this. That's an assertion. You've not presented any examples where this oh-so-important assertion of yours makes any difference. Oh, and I understand the grammar. > The GPL contains, in the same sentence, a pair of noun clauses, placed > in apposition, with unambiguous syntactical markers (a colon and the > adverbial phrase "that is to say") indicating that the second noun > clause is an attempt to paraphrase the first. http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Athat+is+to+say indicates the meaning of this phrase is: "namely: as follows" In other words, a reasonable person could assume that this part of the definition is more specific about what "work based on the Program" means than the preceding part. I see no basis here for assuming that the GPL is incorrect about what it says. -- Raul
