Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > > In any case, I am speaking here of literal copying only. > > In that case, what's the problem you're hypothesizing? Every FOSS > license permits literal copying, and no FOSS license imposes a > copyleft obligation on any *other* work just because of making literal > copies of the FOSS work.
Literal copying and adding material is still literal copying, as distinct from the kind of indirect copying for which the AFC test is relevant. > Modified source code solely to accomplish interworking? No, not at all. > I contend that the differences of the methods of interworking are > largely irrelevant to the analysis. I agree, but again you are bringing up red herrings. I am not speaking of interworking at all, but of functional enhancement using expressive means. > Modified source code to change the program and its expression? That > sounds like a derivative work. The question is, when does mere addition of new and itself copyrightable material (not de minimis, no form/content merger) without deletion or replacement count as making a derivative work? To take your stapled vs. unstapled booklet hypo: if Charlie stapled the pages of two stories (written separately by Alice and Bob) alternately (and supposing that no sentences or paragraphs in either story ran over a page boundary), would that make Charlie's booklet a derivative work of Alice's story and Bob's story, or still merely a collective work? Every sentence is still traceable to either Bob or Alice. -- One Word to write them all, John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> One Access to find them, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One Excel to count them all, And thus to Windows bind them. --Mike Champion _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss