On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:31:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 11:18:30PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > > > > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in > > > > an ELF object, or anything comparable. (b) is the one that we normally > > > > deal with in Debian. > > > > > > > > [Always remember: derivation is a transitive relation. If a is derived > > > > from b, and b is derived from c, then a is derived from c] > > > > > > This is not true. The parts that make A a derivative of B may be > > > disjoint from the parts that make B a derivative of C. (When those > > > works are virally licensed, the license is transitive.) > > > > It's still true, you've just introduced an aliasing error. Set the > > resolution to 'lines of code', not 'packages'. > > Which case or statutory law allows that level of resolution?
Not everything in the world is stated in case or statutory law. Elementary logic, for example, is very rarely defined in either, yet is routinely used by the courts. > Every > analysis I have seen treats copyright law as covering published works, > not lines of code. Whatever, this defeats your argument anyway. Pick whatever arbitrary point you want; it really makes no difference, so I don't see any value in debating it. > The FSF has a rather > well-known policy of accepting extremely short patches without > copyright assignments on the basis that a short-enough patch is not > copyrightable. That's entirely different. A sufficiently short patch isn't creative because it's obvious, that's all they're saying. Most bug fixes fall into this category. You can certainly do something creative enough to be copyrightable in 10 lines or so if you try hard enough[0]. [0] http://www.ioccc.org/ -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
