On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level, > I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative. In the case of > literal patches, literally and provably so, due to the context-diff which > literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived.
Ok, to illustrate, let's consider the bit I just quoted the original work. This would be a derivative work: To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level, I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative. In the case of literal patches, literally, and figuratively, and provably so, due to the context-diff which literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived. This would not be a derivative work: and figuratively, This isn't a derivative work: On line three insert the characters "and figuratively, " after the second comma. This is more fuzzy, but is probably fair use to the extent that it is a derivative work: I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative. In the case of -literal patches, literally, and provably so, due to the context-diff which +literal patches, literally, and figuratively, and provably so, due to the context-diff which literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived. That's what I'm getting at. The actual changes themselves aren't a derivative work - it is the result of applying them that is. Rich
