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
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
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.