> > Remember: DERIVATIVE <==> TRANSFORMATION. > > Word games, no change in meaning. You're saying that "Only the > verbatim copying of a copyrighted text, possibly with modifications, > can constitute copyright infringement; all other actions are legal". > > The rest of your mail just ranted the same thing several times. My > point stands.
Nope. I didn't the first time, and I didn't now. You are being a child, not giving any reasonable reasoning, and trying to put words in my mouth. Me and Sean Kellog (in this same thread) we're trying to demonstrate (via showing of code law, case law, etc -- things that *really* matter in the *real* world) our point of view. Besides, I was a paralegal for two years, in a District Attorney's office and I have participated in legal research for prosecuting copyright infringers -- I _do_ know what I'm talking about, in the real world. And in no moment I showed for you the lack of respect you are showing for me right now. I did _not_ just ranted the same. I did offer you an example of how you are simply plain wrong -- as is the GPL FSF FAQ -- when you say that linking to a library creates a derivative work. A derivative work is NOT what you want it to be... it's a very well-defined (by code law and case law) legal entity. And it happens to differ (a lot) of what you think it is. Go in my example (that you so impolitely skipped in this response) and give me _any_ _good_ argument on why my program is or is not a derivative work of libc. Then, give me an argument on what libc (MSVCRT, BSD libc, or glibc) you think my program is a derivative work of, and why. I'll give you counter- arguments, and you'll see I'm right. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
