[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Licensing question about the BSD

From: Bruce Lewis
Subject: Re: Licensing question about the BSD
Date: 16 Aug 2005 14:22:25 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3

Isaac <> writes:

> I think suggesting that an unmodified work has been recast or transformed in
> form is a pretty big stretch.  Adapted comes the closest, but in my opinion
> adapting requires making at least some change to fit.  Yet you've expressly
> stated that the original software has not been modified.

Meaning that the original source or object code has not been mutated.
In the sense I'm using "modified", a naked statue remains unmodified
when clothing is draped over it.  An artist might think differently.

> Maybe building on other software without modifying it does result in a
> derivative work, but I don't think parsing the literal meaning of the
> statute is going to support the argument.  I'd want to see some case law.

I won't know either until I see relevant case law.  Alexander Terekhov
seems to think he knows already.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]