Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in > form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion > adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly > stated that the original software has not been modified.
Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated. In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified when clothing is draped over it. An artist might think differently. > Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a > derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the > statute is going to support the argument. I'd want to see some case law. I won't know either until I see relevant case law. Alexander Terekhov seems to think he knows already. _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
