David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:50:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 12:44:56AM +0200, Sunnanvind Briling Fenderson > > wrote: > > > A copyright license is a copyrightable work. > > > > Pleasse supply a reference backing up this assertion, please. > > It's a large chunk of text, that took significant creative work to make. > Why wouldn't it be copyrightable? I don't see why it's any different > from any other textual work of the same size and creative effort.
Effort is not relevant in copyright absent originality. The point is that legal documents are often not copyrightable. But things like the GPL are. Thomas
