21 Jun
2006
21 Jun
'06
10:28 a.m.
hi matju, hi marc
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 22:38 -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
work. A picture retouched with the Gimp is a derivative work of the original picture, not of the Gimp.
It's not a suitable analogy because the picture doesn't contain a copy of the Gimp.
so does a patch not contain the code of [expr], but is referencing it. it doesn't even say, which [expr] it is referencing. what if, when you share a patch and give a dummy-[expr] with it and you tell explicitly not to use the 'original' [expr], that comes with millers pd, and people do substitute it by themselves?
roman
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de