[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Roman Haefeli]

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