Re: GPL and other licences

[Barry Margolin]

In article <43E2063B.A61D7308@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 
> > In article <43E090DB.CFEC44EF@web.de>,
> >  Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two programs is not
> > > > just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a
> > > > copy of the other.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "merge". They remain as two separate computer
> > > programs (or parts thereof, if you like) under copyright law. No
> > > protected expression was transformed/modified forming a derivative
> > > work. Combined executable is just an aggregation of many computer
> > > program works under copyright law. If you insist I can supply you
> > > with maps that will allow you to extract all those distinct
> > > components.
> > 
> > Who said "combined executable"? 
> 
> I said.

OK, so why are you inventing new issues, rather than addressing the 
topic of the thread?  The OP said "a derivative work combined from 
software licensed under the Apache Software Licence 2.0 and software 
licensed under the GNU GPL 2.0".  This sounds to me like he's using 
pieces of source code, not combining executables.

>  
> >                                 I'm talking about copying parts of the
> > source code of program A into a copy of program B, to create a new
> > program C.  
> 
> You're talking nonsense. Or, if you like, you're talking marketing.

I'm talking about what programmers do when they copy source code to 
create a new program.

It sounds like you're assuming that he's linking a program with a 
library.  I'm not sure how you got that from what he wrote.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***