Re: Licensing pictures within an application
Michael Poole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> What seems to be SCO's leading theory whereby IBM would be liable for
> copyright infringement is that IBM improperly copied "methods and
> processes" (or sometimes concepts) from UNIX code to Linux source
> code, and that this copying makes Linux an unauthorized derivative
> work of System V UNIX. This seems to be the same theory you propound. [...]
No, that is not at all what I am suggesting. I'm sorry it's not clear to you.
> MJ Ray writes:
> > "Influenced by" seems a rather weaker example than my one of an
> > expression leading me to write another particular expression.
> > Are you claiming a work whose expression is part-determined by
> > another expression is not necessarily a derivative of it?
> In the absense of a definition for "part-determined", I cannot answer.
> It seems a considerably stricter condition than your original "knowing
> that expression led me to write a new large expression a particular
> way". [...]
The meaning should be exactly the same: the previous and known
expression leads one to pick from a limited (but maybe large)
number of ways to write a second expression that makes sense,
and it is written in one of those ways.