MJ Ray writes: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> MJ Ray writes: >> > "Influenced by" seems a rather weaker example than my one of an >> > expression leading me to write another particular expression. >> > Are you claiming a work whose expression is part-determined by >> > another expression is not necessarily a derivative of it? >> >> In the absense of a definition for "part-determined", I cannot answer. >> It seems a considerably stricter condition than your original "knowing >> that expression led me to write a new large expression a particular >> way". [...] > > The meaning should be exactly the same: the previous and known > expression leads one to pick from a limited (but maybe large) > number of ways to write a second expression that makes sense, > and it is written in one of those ways.
Then the answer is no: that is not by itself sufficient to make the second expression legally a derivative of the first. Why would that be sufficient reason to establish derivativeness? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
