Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. scripsit:
> Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable
> observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a
> derivative of source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative
> of the original. In a metaphysical sense, we can debate the point,
> but there is no debate in the copyright sense.
Since none of the relevant licenses permits copying but forbids
derivative works (the QPL, exceptionally, forbids the *distribution*
of derivative works, but not their creation), this is a distinction
without a difference.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of giants."
--Isaac Newton
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
