Merijn de Weerd wrote: > > On 2006-05-13, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Merijn de Weerd wrote: > >> My reply is an original work of authorship. I provided > >> annotations and other modifications to the message I replied > >> to. Therefore my reply is and only can be a derivative work. > > > > You simply don't grok it. > > That's nice. Now provide an argument why, please. > > > This is a derivative (annotated) work: > > True, adding inline annotations produces a derivative work. > > Why is a series of citations followed by annotations or responses > not derivative? It's a critique, not a rewrite, but it does > incorporate parts of a preexisting work into a new work. > > I don't think there's a single judge who would consider the > style of quoting (inline [] versus ">"-based quoting) at > all relevant.
Incorporating (parts of a) preexisting work into a new work is not sufficient criterion to distinguish derivative works from compilations. Both types of work employ preexisting material. At this point, I'll just let you sort it out with your professor. But you are quite correct that the issue of ">"- based quoting is irrelevant. I just wonder why did you bring this issue in one of your previous messages. You're also wrong that "compilation consists of a collection of preexisting works _without creative additions by the collector_". A collector may well author a separate and independent work(s) (like inroduction, preface, etc.) and include it in his compilation just like all other separate and independent works. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
