Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What seems to be SCO's leading theory whereby IBM would be liable for > copyright infringement is that IBM improperly copied "methods and > processes" (or sometimes concepts) from UNIX code to Linux source > code, and that this copying makes Linux an unauthorized derivative > work of System V UNIX. This seems to be the same theory you propound. [...]
No, that is not at all what I am suggesting. I'm sorry it's not clear to you. > MJ Ray writes: > > "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? > > In the absense of a definition for "part-determined", I cannot answer. > It seems a considerably stricter condition than your original "knowing > that expression led me to write a new large expression a particular > way". [...] The meaning should be exactly the same: the previous and known expression leads one to pick from a limited (but maybe large) number of ways to write a second expression that makes sense, and it is written in one of those ways. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
