On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:31:15 +0100 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > A book that refers the user to a dictionary for > > the definition of a number of words is not a derivative > > work of that dictionary. > > So why are there numerous court decisions that "deep linking" of web > site material constitutes copyright infringement? Are you implying that refering to dictionary does indeed create a derivative work? > > You have equally few > > arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the > > Operating System they run on. > > Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding > execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence? So are you of the opinion that every program, whatever the format (source or otherwise) is a derivative work of the Operating System (and as such could not be written without the prior consent of the owner of the OS copyrights)? If so, you're casting your nets so wide that any new work becomes a derivative work of everthing previously written. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
