[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :

 On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:

> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)

 I'm writing in english, not greek.

Your reaction is uncalled-for. You wrote the word dichotomy. I am explaining that the meaning of the word dichotomy is "TWO SEPARATED", by force of its Greek origins. Dictionary definition of dichotomy: " A twofold division or distinction, especially one between mutually exclusive things. "

 If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that
 a collective work can't be a derivative work (for example, if you
 think that an anthology can't be a derivative work based on the
 contained stories, or that a subsequent edition of that anthology
 can't be a derivative work of an earlier edition), please cite that
 specific document.

I cited it. The Law. USC 17. BR Law 9610/98. Case Law. Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison, remember. Doctrine says: if the law enumerates things separately, it's separating things *and* you can only treat two (or more) enumerated things together if you cite both (or all) of them. It's the *standard* way of reading the law.

Now, in your parentheses you say: <<if you think an anthology can't be a derivative work on the combined stories>>. I don't think so, I *know* so. I will repeat and cite 9609/98, art.7, XIII, the equivalent USC17 section (I am without my refs on USC17 ITM) and every Law book on Hermeneutics. I can't cite even a single source. Google for it, you'll find it.

Now, you extrapolated this. with the <<or that a subsequent edition of that anthology can't be a derivative work of an earlier edition>>. I does not only *can* be, but it *is* a derivative work of the earlier edition, even if it does not repeat *one* single story, but if its organization/selection/disposition of contents is derived from [= results from a transformation of] the earlier edition.

So, as I explained before, Linux 2.6.7 (the anthology, not the parts) is a derived work on Linux 0.01 _and_ would be if it did not contain a single line of the earlier version. It's structure/organization/selection/disposition of contents are clearly, historically, documentedly result of a series of transformations on the earlier version's structure/etc. But the parts of the anthology are another subject, as I tried to make it clear in my other example.


Reply to: