Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > Sez law. If knowing that expression led me to write a new large > > expression a particular way, wouldn't you call it derived? > > SCOX will no doubt be glad to hear that its "methods and processes" > copyright infringement theory is recognized by and agreeable to free > software advocates. Or is that not what you meant?
It seems unlikely I meant that, but your point is unclear to me because I've mostly ignored the SCO comedy. > At least in the US, copyright law covers specific types of creative > expression. Creative expression may be expressed at the textual > level, at the structural level, or potentially at some other level, > but a thing influenced by one form of creative expression is not > necessarily a derivative work of that expression. "Influenced by" seems a rather weaker example than my one of an expression leading me to write another particular expression. Are you claiming a work whose expression is part-determined by another expression is not necessarily a derivative of it? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
