-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Gorecki wrote: > On Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:50 pm, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > >>On the other hand, consider a single software distribution consisting of >>multiple source files -- perhaps some are added at a later date to add >>new features. Not all of the source files may be necessary, but they do >>add useful things onto the bare-bones package. > > > Precisely: "onto the bare-bones package"-- a single application that has > optional features, as opposed to a suite of applications that can be used > independently, each of which may have their own optional features. Microsoft > Office is a collective work, and that doesn't mean that it lacks an expansive > number of (exploitable) add-on features for each program.
In this case, I'm considering the 'system' group bare-bones, and additional ebuilds as additional source files that add desirable features onto the package. >>Also, a collective work generally involves applying some degree of >>creativity in the choice -- things are chosen for a specific, creative >>purpose. The less creativity and choice involved, the less likely it >>truly is a collective work. > > > I'm unclear on your definitions of "the choice" and "things". The choice for > who, of what, and which things? Please clarify. The choice is a choice to add a piece (an ebuild) to the work, and things are parts of a work -- in this case, ebuilds. If ebuilds aren't added because of some artistic, creative impact upon the whole work, then it doesn't qualify as collective. In general, this is not the case -- people don't add ebuilds because they think it makes the tree more beautiful. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCENDLXVaO67S1rtsRAotNAJ9BkXGPHBmIZxvHVnKd/RfBrGoT+gCgoUHK r17xEyBpvoRAQPvMducTCUY= =t1Cn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
