Rick Moen wrote:
Weren't you saying that a derived work remains a derived work, even
after all the original content has been replaced? If so, then why
should it matter if the original modules were eventually replaced by
wholly new modules that interact in wholly new ways?
Because if
John, I appreciate the trouble you've been taking on this, especially
the relevant quotations from 17 USC 103. I've been meaning to
straighten out my understanding of this matter, and really should have
read the relevant statutes. Far too much of what's said on this matter
ignores the statutes
Rick Moen wrote:
Seems almost like homeopathy, doesn't it? None of Alice's code may
remain in A1, but (as you say) its being a derived work remains, and
thus the obligation to conform to Alice's licence terms persists.
And of course the reason homeopathic pills don't work is that the
begin John Cowan quotation:
And of course the reason homeopathic pills don't work is that the efficacy of
pills depends on the current state, not the historical origin.
Don't tempt me towards an off-topic disquisition, but you'll want to
look up the "Law of Similars" and the "Law of
4 matches
Mail list logo
