Re: module license taints kernel.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:38:32 -0800 (PST) David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

| Then what are we arguing about? If we both agree that for copyright
| purposes linking and archiving are the same, then we should be able to
| agree that neither creates a derivative work and neither extends
| copyright protection of the "input" works to the "output work" because
| there is no "output work" for copyright purposes.

I what is in RAM what you are arguing about as being a derived work?
Or is it a _copy_ of that RAM contents (such as dumping the RAM out to
a favorite P2P repository)?

I think we are getting down into the semantics of whether the copying
_into_ RAM of the separate works is somehow different that the copying
out _from_ RAM of a combined/derived/whatever work. But if we are not
even copying out from the RAM, what are you guys even arguing your own
agreements about?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-11-27-2330@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.