On 02/04/2013 18:47, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
When you add to that the fact that the particular case we're concerned with involves copyleft licensing which gives a particular and precise definition to what is considered a "derivative work", it really doesn't seem to me possible to just write this off.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
A derivative work is whatever the LAW says it is (whatever that is :-). NO open source licence defines the term "derivative work", although they may give their own interpretation of what they think it is.
The whole point of open source licences is they are LICENCES. They GRANT PERMISSIONS. If, IN LAW, my work is not a derivative work then I don't need no permission from no-one! and what the GPL or any other licence may say is totally irrelevant. In particular, any attempt by them to override the legal definition of "derivative work" is irrelevant and - quite likely - a fraud!
Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
