On Sun, 21 October 2001, "Michael Beck" wrote:
> > From:  email@greglondon.com
> > [blah blah blah]

> I am not sure that I followed your example.

you draw a blueprint for a lovely two story colonial house.
You copyright the blueprint. 
I buy a copy of the blueprint from you.
I look at your blueprint, and I go and 
draw a blueprint for a lovely three-car garage.

My garage is designed to attach to one of the walls of the
house which your blueprint describes. note, my blueprint
doesn't copy from your blueprint. I simply draw a blueprint
of a building that can be built alongside the house your
blueprint describes.

I copyright my blueprint.

There is nothing in my blueprint that is derived from your blueprint.
all the lines, all the text, all the funky little symbols that
you created for your blueprint are not present in mine.
my blueprint is an entirely new work.

one is a house, one is a garage. there is no deriving one from the other.
they're just end up being two buildings that will get
built attached to one another.

> You are contradicting yourself - if you are reselling it as an "aggregation",
> how would it support the idea that inheritance is not a derivative work?

I paid you for my copy of your blueprint.
I can sell it as used to someone else.
(used music stores, used bookstores, etc)

And, I can put it in plastic shrinkwrap (aggregate)
and sell it as blueprints for a lovely house with
a lovely attached garage.

I'm not photocopying your blueprint and selling copies
of it. I'm selling the copy I bought from you.
so it isn't piracy.

And my garage blueprint is not a derived work of your house blueprint.
so I can do what I wish with my blueprint.

and putting them together in shrink wrap
is no different than selling a bunch of 
sci-fi books by different authors together
for a reduced price. aggregation, not derivation.

Greg


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

