On 4/3/06, Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/3/06, Patrick McFarland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The King James Bible, while almost insulting to bibles by calling it a > > bible, > > is not copyrighted and is a public domain work. > > Right, which is why I thought it was weird to copyright a derivative > of it. Again, I'm not a lawyer, perhaps that sort of thing is just > fine.
The original poster just stated that they wanted to licence the resultant derivative work. IANAL, but I'm sure if they add content to a public domain work, that their additions would be eligible for copyright consideration, even if the base work was not. Then the combination of the public domain base work (i.e. the KJV) and their changes (copyrighted) would be released under a licence. Not how I'd do it, but it sounds legit to my non-lawyer thinking. I'd just make my changes public-domain and publish the combination under a name that helped people understand that it was a derivative of the KJV. KJV++ anyone? KJV 2.0 perhaps? Out of interest, will you be accepting volunteers? My Hebrew is terrible without a copy of Strongs to hand, but I would be delighted to help with proof-reading. > Jason Simon -- www.simonpeter.org _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
