Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: keep a gen 2013 snapshot on mirrors

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level,
> I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative.  In the case of
> literal patches, literally and provably so, due to the context-diff which
> literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived.

Ok, to illustrate, let's consider the bit I just quoted the original
work.  This would be a derivative work:

To the extent patches are larger than the rather blurry "trivial" level,
I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative.  In the case of
literal patches, literally, and figuratively, and provably so, due to
the context-diff which
literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived.

This would not be a derivative work:
and figuratively,

This isn't a derivative work:
On line three insert the characters "and figuratively, " after the second comma.

This is more fuzzy, but is probably fair use to the extent that it is
a derivative work:
I believe there's no question that they ARE derivative.  In the case of
-literal patches, literally, and provably so, due to the context-diff which
+literal patches, literally, and figuratively, and provably so, due to
the context-diff which
literally includes lines from the original from which it is derived.

That's what I'm getting at.  The actual changes themselves aren't a
derivative work - it is the result of applying them that is.

Rich