Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > As obviously the objective of all of this would be
> > to sell binaries without source, 
> 
> Without non-GPLed sources. Or with sources but not under the GPL
> (I mean non-GPLed modules). I see no problem in passing along the 
> GPLed sources (including derivative works).
> 
> >                                  compiling the "ripped"
> > file or code would create a derivative work, 
> 
> Compilers and linkers don't create derivative works. Binary 
> object code is just another form of the copyrighted source 
> code.

Since the definition of "derivative work" is pretty much "depends on
the original for its creation", "just another form" is very much what
qualifies for derivatives.

And is a car just another form of its blueprints?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum