John, I appreciate the trouble you've been taking on this, especially
the relevant quotations from 17 USC 103. I've been meaning to
straighten out my understanding of this matter, and really should have
read the relevant statutes. Far too much of what's said on this matter
ignores the statutes a
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
> [O]ther parties on this list have asserted -- plausibly and without
> contradiction -- that only the copyright holder may relicense a work.
True, in the sense that I can't just hike off Alice's copyright and
supply my own. False, in the sense that I can cr
begin John Cowan quotation:
> This is why I said the term "relicense" should be avoided, as it creates
> more confusion than it dispels.
Point taken.
> Good enough, but see the bit about translation below.
Seems almost like homeopathy, doesn't it? None of Alice's code may
remain in A1, but (
Rick Moen wrote:
> Seems almost like homeopathy, doesn't it? None of Alice's code may
> remain in A1, but (as you say) its being a derived work remains, and
> thus the obligation to conform to Alice's licence terms persists.
And of course the reason homeopathic pills don't work is that the effi
begin John Cowan quotation:
> And of course the reason homeopathic pills don't work is that the efficacy of
> pills depends on the current state, not the historical origin.
Don't tempt me towards an off-topic disquisition, but you'll want to
look up the "Law of Similars" and the "Law of Dilution
5 matches
Mail list logo
