Larry --
I want to become a believer that the appropriate analysis only requires
determination of whether A is a derivative of B. But I just don't see how
that analysis squares with that paragraph of section 2. I am stuck on that
legal rule of construction that says that in judging various
Scott,
I never suggested that a software license (speaking generally, now)
only requires a determination of whether A is a derivative of B.
Contracts set their own law, and definitions matter. Theoretically one
can write a license that sets reciprocity conditions that apply to works
that link to
Larry --
You keep returning to contract obligations. But, I'm not relying on any
contract obligations. Any distribution that includes copyrightable material
from B needs the permission of B's copyright owner. The hypothetical that
I've presented includes distribution of B. Thus, B's permission is
Scott--
My critique of Larry's analysis is to say that considering whether A is a
derivative work of B is not necessarily the end of the analysis. What I
^^
Provide one does not introduce subjective points, but where are the
On Tuesday 14 January 2003 01:56 pm, PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:
Larry --
You keep returning to contract obligations. But, I'm not relying on any
contract obligations. Any distribution that includes copyrightable material
from B needs the permission of B's copyright owner. The
5 matches
Mail list logo
