Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com): > Rick; > > I think you are missing one key point in your reply to me.
I didn't miss that. > In short: Part of the point is to realize that the engineer's question > is "What do I have to do to stay safe? How do I know if this license > applies?" 'Law being complex is a Problem.' Making the world perfect is somewhere on my to-do list, but the task will not get much love today. Anyway, I actually spent quite a bit of time painstakingly explaining to you why your premise was wrong and your entire framing of the issue is wrong-headed from the start. Now, with quite breathtaking speed, you have come back with a lot more. I'm out of time, for now. Sorry. (By the way, I was already short of time enough that I forgot the numbered footnote, earlier. That should have been something like: [1] Particulars to follow will be somewhat USA-centric, for which my apologies to the international subscriber base.) Anyway, at a quick glance, you really need to take care that you aren't twisting the concepts of 'functional element' and 'expressive element' outside their intended meaning in copyright law when you spin out doubtfully related expressions like 'functional connection' and 'expressive derivation'. I'd suggest more reading of caselaw and fewer amateur theoretical constructions, if you want to come up with something relevant to actual law. > So we get back to the problem that Bruce was trying to answer, which > is how we explain what a license allows to non-lawyers. 'Laymen not finding complex licensing as easy to read as a dinner menu is a Problem' is IMVAO an utter waste of time. However, if that's your idea of a hobby, enjoy. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss