David Joyner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jason Grout > <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: >> David Joyner wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Jason Grout >>> <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > > .... > >> I guess the situation changes if some example code from the document is >> actually incorporated into Sage. For example, if in the book, I have a >> sample function that draws a volumetric data visualization in the >> document, or if there was a simple calculus function that wasn't already >> in Sage, then there would be problems if we tried to put those into Sage >> itself, unless I explicitly dual-licensed the code. Is that correct? > > > I agree that dual-licensing makes sense in that circumstance. However, > depending on how you define "simple" it is possible that the sample > function does not meet the creative work criteria and so was so simple > it was not copyrightable in the first place.
Is that equivalent to saying that including the small snippet of code in Sage (say, 5-10 lines of straightforward code) falls under fair use? Or is your statement and my statement not equivalent regarding why a short piece of code can in fact be incorporated in a GPL-licensed file? I guess I hadn't thought that I could consider a small simple straightforward section of a book not copyrightable. That would seem to imply that, for example, a few simple exercises in a textbook are not copyrightable. Thanks for helping us (me!) to wrap our heads around the issues. Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
