Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > 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. > > Then the answer is no: that is not by itself sufficient to make the > second expression legally a derivative of the first. Why would that > be sufficient reason to establish derivativeness?
Because use of the first expression means that I wrote the second expression a particular way. It cannot be clean room or independent, as it incorporates copyrighted elements of the first. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
