From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A99B138247 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E653DE0A82; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93E9E0A5B for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ib11so1693549vcb.25 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:38:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=GuMV01/v49hHL2uHOVlf6ztAdLzehN01Ic45Gxb0iyQ=; b=m0hSUwKKrS6aQYrqUz0IK5LmoGjq6sC6eCzhHDeIEK1YF/5ptRGuptEBVS3xTcJPxO UbzNjHib0zeuzX8AqwXu1E21CQzcl0v8rtu4rKpycsBgIrKL3ObUa6Cds6AMnzGT3o9W 5ksRdw1RfK35KNenvTo8dTvWRO7zxWV1nwYf3gO9pCeNaP21mWEWSldsC6+aW8H2V0XI 76qW620rItouoW6N4IEBxOmZS+MO3ozCMfnEmpvIlHNlsw8Pv7ZVBnf4wAQ8exfvmatv XXewVKpRlrw5DGVm4Vj8yy+rc5nyxlmz+qdkkRnIEP5SVQ2UwBZSdWDUBYuLPi2OxQsL b0uQ== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.98.194 with SMTP id ek2mr3856944vdb.11.1384522700887; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:38:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.108.199 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:38:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <5283CBD3.1010309@gmail.com> <1384375774.3173.0@NeddySeagoon_SSD> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 08:38:20 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I9hN0bfSIEAS0YBqpN32DP3tds0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: keep a gen 2013 snapshot on mirrors From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 8d4880cf-f8a4-42dd-a229-ae596ab6e377 X-Archives-Hash: bb60f75a7632912cab48ac776ccfb198 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