|
From: | Hyman Rosen |
Subject: | Re: PJ lies about Terekhov--again |
Date: | Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:25:24 -0500 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Well, the High-on-Crack Court is of opinion that replacing OS bootloader constitutes creation of a derivative work that needs permission from OS' copyright owner because "[w]ithout a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate." Do you share that absurd 'legal' reasoning, dear Hyman?
The court referred to precedent in D&B v. Grace. Think of it as a book - if someone takes a book and prepares a new one by replacing some chapters of it with chapters of his own, is the result a derivative work? This court decided yes. Whether or not this is good is up for debate, but it is not wrong on its face.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |