Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Well, the High-on-Crack Court is of opinion that replacing OS bootloader constitutes creation of a derivative work that needs permission from OS' copyright owner because "[w]ithout a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate." Do you share that absurd 'legal' reasoning, dear Hyman?
The court referred to precedent in D&B v. Grace. Think of it as a book - if someone takes a book and prepares a new one by replacing some chapters of it with chapters of his own, is the result a derivative work? This court decided yes. Whether or not this is good is up for debate, but it is not wrong on its face. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
