Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:09:11 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87d2nf3ftk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20131008144124.GA14876@debian> (Jonathan Dowland's message of "Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:41:24 +0100")
- References: <20130126133513.GB4263@falafel.plessy.net> <20130126140148.GA3604@jwilk.net> <20130127010406.GA27687@falafel.plessy.net> <510685AE.4000703@twerner42.de> <20130223133904.GC3875@falafel.plessy.net> <20130225134638.GA3438@falafel.plessy.net> <20130913201822.GA23349@helios.localdomain> <87fvt8zct8.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20130913203016.GA23867@helios.localdomain> <877gekzcdr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <[🔎] 20131008144124.GA14876@debian>
Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:37:36PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ah, I hadn't ever thought about it from that angle. Basically, the
>> argument is that if there's no original creative addition, it can't be
>> a derivative work? On first glance, 17 U.S.C. § 101 appears to support
>> that:
> Eek. What about (hypothetical) derivative works which do not add
> anything, but take things away? ("this option just confuses our users")
Selection of what to take away can be a creative addition in the sense
that I meant it, so addition was probably the wrong word.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: