|
Re: Licensing question about the BSD: msg#00154org.gnu.discuss
Isaac <isaac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in > form is a pretty big stretch. Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion > adapting requires making at least some change to fit. Yet you've expressly > stated that the original software has not been modified. Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated. In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified when clothing is draped over it. An artist might think differently. > Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a > derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the > statute is going to support the argument. I'd want to see some case law. I won't know either until I see relevant case law. Alexander Terekhov seems to think he knows already. |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | 応募者全員プレゼントのお知らせ: 00154, info |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | GNU install issue: 00154, Matthew Rich |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Licensing question about the BSDi: 00154, Isaac |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Licensing question about the BSD: 00154, Isaac |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |