Re: Licensing pictures within an application
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Licensing pictures within an application
- From: Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 11:40:59 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (MJ Ray's message of "01 Oct 2005 15:23:32 GMT")
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
MJ Ray writes:
> Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd work
>> > contains detailed knowledge of the expression of the CC'd work,
>> > then it is a derivative work and not possible to distribte under GPL.
>> Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.)
> Sez law. If knowing that expression led me to write a new large
> expression a particular way, wouldn't you call it derived?
SCOX will no doubt be glad to hear that its "methods and processes"
copyright infringement theory is recognized by and agreeable to free
software advocates. Or is that not what you meant?
At least in the US, copyright law covers specific types of creative
expression. Creative expression may be expressed at the textual
level, at the structural level, or potentially at some other level,
but a thing influenced by one form of creative expression is not
necessarily a derivative work of that expression.