[akrito]

> If I'm not allowed to make a derivative of the LICENSE DOCUMENT, how am I able to create a parody interpretation?

I think you've got it right there. A cursory search of Wikipedia shows parodies may fall under fair use, never mind the copyright notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody#Copyright_issues

[jrockway]

Yes, exactly. The license clause can only be enforced because of copyright law, and fair use is allowed for by the copyright law. The rights given to you by the law supersede anything a license says, because without that law, the license would be completely meaningless.

(In theory, the reason EULAs work is because when you run the program, you are copying it from disk to RAM. This is why they are believed to be very shaky, as copyright law does not specifically consider copying from disk to RAM inside a black box to be "copying".

The GPL is on firmer ground, because it covers copying for distribution to other people. That is a situation that copyright law is specific about.)

[davisp]

LOL, WHUT?

This is exactly why people like me get confused about such things. From the little reading I've done I tend toward the "copyrights sound like the solution, and everything else is a twisted interpretation of that" point of view, but I'm only well read enough to know that I'm not well read enough to have an actual opinion.

[davisp]

Whats better is that the Wikipedia explanation goes into a whole section of "Parody vs. Satire" where Webster defines parody as a subset of satire. Makes my head hurt.