On 3/23/2010 2:40 PM, RJack wrote:
Originality is a *requirement* before copyright is granted.
They say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But I guess stupidity explains a lot. SimplexGrinnell v. Integerated Systems & Power United Staes District Court Southern District of New York <http://www.scribd.com/doc/14760460/Simplexgrinnell-v-Integrated-040809> Although the parties presented this issue in terms of SimplexGrinnell's copyright in the various revisions of the Programmer, each new version constitutes a separate derivative work Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit <http://openjurist.org/312/f3d/94> We have explained that "`[o]riginality' in [the copyright] context `means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.'"
You will never be able to separate ownership claims to establish what is derivative and what is joint in BusyBox.
There is nothing joint in BusyBox because there is no stated intent by all of its authors to create a joint work. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
