Re: The SFLC dismissals should be coming soon

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/16/2010 12:06 PM, RJack wrote:
> > Obviously, If you author a derivative work you *must* be able to 
> > identify the owners of the "one or more preexisting works *that you
> >  modified*.
>
> No, that's not true, and does not follow from anything you quoted. To
>  create a derivative work you must have permission from the rights 
> holders. In the case of GPLed code, that permission is expressed 
> through the license, and no specific knowledge of the identity of the
>  owners is required.

Hyman: Uh your honor, I received permission from some unknown authors to
create this derivative work. It's a new work known under copyright law
as a derivative of a 'compilation of derivative works by unknown authors'.

Judge: Could you please point to the section of the Copyright Act
defining this category of original creative work?

Hymen: Yes your honor, it follows the section that defines "copyleft"
that was added by Richard Stallman. It's my proudest contribution to the
new, improved Copyright Act of 2010.

Judge: I thought only Congress could amend the Copyright Act.

Hyman: Not in the land of GNU your Honor. We play by different rules
here. We often accomplish several impossible things by noon each day!


"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)