On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> I think (and hope) that existing practice supports the idea that
> linking does create a derived work.

What I specifically meant by "not been answered authoritively" is that 
it's never been put in front of a judge.  There is basically no precedent 
to cover this.  While existing practice is helpfull, as it tells the judge 
what is "common sense", it's not as helpfull as precedent is.

Personally, I'm not sure where common sense lies here.  What's the 
definition of derivitive work?  What's the definition of linking?

-- 
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
                                - Gene Spafford 
Brian

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners