Re: using GPL api to be used in a properietary software

[David Kastrup]

Stefaan A Eeckels <tengo@DELETEMEecc.lu> writes:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100
> Martin Dickopp <expires-2005-04-30@zero-based.org> wrote:
>
>> I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work
>> of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a
>> non-limitative list of illustrations.
>
> The enumeration illustrates the way in which "based upon"
> should be construed. A program in source code formar references 
> a library, but is not based upon the library in the sense
> of the definition in 101 USC 17 (which would require an
> adaptation, transformation, etc. of the material in the
> library). A book that refers the user to a dictionary for
> the definition of a number of words is not a derivative
> work of that dictionary.

So why are there numerous court decisions that "deep linking" of web
site material constitutes copyright infringement?

> Both source code and dynamically linked executables refer to the
> libraries (and other resources such as the OS). Once you claim that
> a dynamically linked executable is a derivative work of the
> libraries it "uses", you have precious few arguments left to argue
> the source code is an independent work. You have equally few
> arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the
> Operating System they run on.

Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding
execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum