Re: More GPL questions

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the
>> >> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included
>> >> in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E',
>> >> the resulting source code will contain the whole of "stdio.h", and as
>> >> such it's now most definitely something that is affected by the stdio.h
>> >> copyright (I leave it to Alexander to define if it's a derivative work,
>> >> a compilation, or anything he wishes).
>> >
>> > Mechanical transformation never create derivative works.
>> 
>> Sure, but we are not talking about "mechanical transformation", but
>> mechanical _combination_.  "cc -E" _includes_ stdio.h and other stuff.
>
> Whatever, retard.

Actually, it also replaces macros.  Looks like you have run out of
arguments again.

>> > Legally it's just copying of the original expression without
>> > transforming/modifying creativity resulting in a derivative work. So
>> > your 'cc -E' would simply "mere aggregate" (in GNU speak) original
>> > protected expression from multiple separate and independent works
>> > just like tar (same files tar'ed) would do it (legal effect is the
>> > same).
>> 
>> In Terekhov-Lala-land.  "Aggregation" is not a term used for creating
>> a functional unit with inseparable components.
>
> Inseparable as in what?

As in: "the original can't be extracted whole again from the final
product and identifiable traces of it are scattered throughout the
whole resulting file".

> Man oh man.

You can say that again.

> Ever heard of postmortem analysis of core dumps, idiot?

Now you are really striking wild.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum