RJack wrote: [...] > Ohhhhh..... I understand now! You have invented a new copyright concept > called a "derivative-collective work". It is either a collective work or > a derivative work depending on how you feel at the moment. That's kind
Well, reorganizing some preexisting collection to form a new collection similar to the original but creatively different is probably a derivative work in which "work" is a collective work just like the preexisting collective work. But that, of cause, is not what the busybox contributors and code check-in committers are doing. Hyman is just playing his "i'm an utter idiot" game on the net as usual. regards, alexander. P.S. "It is just like a suit to enforce a copyright license, which arises under state law rather than under the Copyright Act. " Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane P.P.S. "the registered work is a compilation" Hyman's lovin' http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss