On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:01:38AM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > >> The issue isn't whether the conversion itself creates a derivative work, > >> though. The issue is whether the "preferred form for modification" is > >> that C code, now that I've converted it, stuck the Pascal code in cold > >> storage never to be touched again, and made substantial modifications > >> to to C code. > > > > Those two issues are the same thing. That was the point. While they > > aren't normally defined in terms of each other (neither causes the > > other), they're testing the same things, so they are equivalent. > > > > When the result is a derivative of the original, the preferred form > > for modification will also include the original. > > I don't believe this is true. Consider Linux 2.6, a work derivative > of Linux 2.4. But only part of the source of Linux 2.4 is included in > Linux 2.6. Much has been excised.
And some hasn't. Yes, there exist cases which are not the extremes. Here part of the result is a derivative of part of the original, and the preferred form includes (the same) part of the original. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
