[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU licenses

From: Stefaan A Eeckels
Subject: Re: GNU licenses
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:55:46 +0200

On 4 Sep 2006 17:19:44 -0700 wrote:

> Your compilation copyright is totally independent from copyrights on
> constituent works.

But you cannot create the compilation without the approval of the
copyright holders of each of the constituent works. The compilation
then is protected by copyright - but only to the extent that someone
else can not put together the same compilation - i.e. it's the creative
act of preparing the compilation that is protected. 

In essence, if you place a copy of your wholly original work and say,
an unmodified copy of GCC together on a CD with some of your drivel,
this is a compilation. To comply with the GPL, you'll have to include
the source to GCC.

Now imagine that you lifted the source code to the GCC 'C' parser from
GCC, and used that in your "MY-C" compiler, then "MY-C" is no longer a
compilation. It's more like lifting Hogwarts and its cast of characters
from the Harry Potter novels (parser) and writing your own stories
(back-end). "MY-C" is now a derivative work of GCC, and you'll have to
include the source code to your stuff in addition to the code you
lifted from GCC (but not the whole of the GCC source code).

At least, that's how I see it, and how I believe a Court might see it.
Thus, if I were the copyright holder, I would not sue you in the first
case, and would most definitely sue you in the second case.

Stefaan A Eeckels
I can understand that some people are cheap. I can't accept that 
they also appear deeply hurt when someone else makes money. 
-- Artur Swietanowski in c.o.l.x

reply via email to

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