Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:11:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Sure, but if you have a program, then that is an original work.
> > Slamming a new license on it creates a new original work (there is still
> > creative content in it), which is based on the original "original work".
> I believe that this is not true based on my reading of that section of the
> US code because the derivative is not original.
I thought "original" was defined by having creative content in it? Nothing
changed in that respect.
> A derivative work has to be, itself, an original work of authorship, at least
> as I read that section of the code.
I didn't see any part of the quotes that confirms this; in fact, what you
quoted seemed to show the opposite.
> I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
We can't, because for that we need to understand each other's positions, and
I'm still trying to understand how you can read it the way you do; I just cant
bend the text to mean what you say it does, even if I try to understand words
in a creative way.
And that's really all I'm trying, too; I don't have an opinion on what is good
or bad, or what Debian needs to do in this matter.
So if you don't feel like trying to explain any further, that's fine. :-)
Also, probably needless to say, I'm not a legal expert either. I suppose I
would have been able to read anything into that text if I was. ;-)