On 5/9/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can't re-state something saying a different thing. GPL#0 says > that "a work based on the Program" is "a derivative work under > copyright law", and then says "that is to say, a work > containing...", which is NOT a re-statement of a "derivative work > under copyright law".
That's another re-statement of what "a work based on the Program" means. > Yes and no. The GPL is the authoritative document on whatever it > wants to define and whatever it CAN define (the GPL CANNOT define > what is "a derivative work under copyright law", for instance)... > but IF AND ONLY IF it defines it without ambiguity. The GPL is not defining what a derivative work under copyright law means. It's defining what a "work based on the Program" means. > What the GPL actually does is defining a cat this way: '' a cat is > the animal on the page 3 of the Domestic Pets Handbook, that is to > say, an animal with four legs and whiskers. ''. Does this defines > all animals with four legs and whiskers as being cats? Not actually. Cats are outside the scope of copyright law. -- Raul
