Bruce Lewis wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Heck. Boy scouts. Hey boy, try thinking of real software derivatives > > like human translations from one programming language to the other > > with the same set of protected elements in both original work and > > derivative work (which falls under "modifications" in the BSD case) > > Even in this case the derivative work can have its own copyright > statement
Not "its own". A non-derivative compilation (i.e. "not based" in the derivative sense under copyright law on some other compilation) have its own its own copyright statements, not derivative works. Derivative works are under copyright of both its (lawful) creator(s) and the owner(s) of the original work. > and license. It must retain the BSD copyright statement and > license, but that still only applies to the original work. It applies the entire inseparable derivative work. Stop confusing derivative works with non-derivative compilations where each constituent work can be under its own license. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
