Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[telford]

Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote:

>> >   Is it 100% the same? I bet the compiler would say it isn't...
>> >   So it is a derivate work.

>> This is a much stricter definition than has been applied to any literary
>> work. Consider that halfway through my book I write:
>>
>>    To fully understand this discussion you should read Foobar's excellent
>>    manuscript titled "Bazzing the Floodle" which provides background.
>>
>> I do not need permission from Foobar's publisher to include such a reference,
>> it falls well within the grounds of fair use.
>>
>> Not too many things in copyright law depend on the "100% the same" metric.

> Of course not. But not having that phrase there doesn't make the book
> utterly unreadeable (or in the case of software, not even compilable).

But you started out setting the threshold at "100% the same" and now
you are setting the threshold at "utterly unreadable" or "compilable"...

Are you saying that any program which compiles on a system with the GPL
libraries and also compiles on a system with those libraries removed is
automatically not infringing? That is different to what you were saying
earlier.

        - Tel