[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

From: Rui Miguel Seabra
Subject: Re: Question About GNU General Public License
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:54:00 +0100

On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 08:34 +0000, wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra <> wrote:
> >> "a set of statements or instructions=20
> >> to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring=20
> >> about a certain result."
> > "in order to bring about a certain result" -> fullfilment
> Potential fullfilment would still suffice.
> There is no constraint that the program has to work reliably
> (or work at all), if there was such a requirement then all of
> Microsoft's rights would be void.

No. That's working reliably. But not even compiling is a different

> > used directly or indirectly -> executable or library
> or part of an executable or part of a library.
> > Get it now?
> Yup, I get it, none of the above says anything about the definition
> of a derivative work. Even if copyright law did have a requirement
> for completeness, where does it explain exactly what makes software
> complete?

It doesn't. That's just evidence that one work depends on the inclusion
of the other.


+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]