Re: Can CC BY 2.0 be upgraded to 3.0 ?
Jonathan Dowland <email@example.com> 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
> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>