* Neil Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Steven Fuerst wrote: > > I think it has something to do with the "derivedness" of it. You basically > > need to start with something completely new to change the copyright. Note > > that IANAL as well, so this could be completely wrong. > > Seems to me that if you just rewrite the same thing, then sure, the > whole work is the same old derived work. Only way that works is if you > do a careful clean room reverse engineering, and clearly most of us > don't qualify for that kind of thing, heh. > > But if you take the parts that are licensed badly, and write new, > differently-behaving replacements, then it gets hard for me to see it > being anything but a new work, at least with respect to the > badly-licensed parts. > > This sort of workaround clearly wouldn't work well for someone trying to > make Angband covered by the GNU GPL, but with ToME 3 we have the luxury > of already rewriting so many things, including the entire monster and > item lists, that a few more big behavioral changes won't matter.
Hello, i think thats wrong. Its not necessary that the new parts behave differently, you only have to write them not using the badly-licensed parts. F'up to gnu.misc.discuss Roman -- _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _| _| _| -------> Hier steht KEIN origineller Spruch <------- _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
