Re: GPL question

[David Kastrup]

richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

> In article <85abw3zl44.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <dak@gnu.org> 
> wrote:
>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>
>>If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which
>>_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make
>>any sense otherwise.  In that case, it is hard to claim that the whole
>>kaboodle was not intended to be linked with readline.
>
> Oh, it was vertainly intended to be (optionally) linked with readline.
>
>>No.  It means that when the derivative is _created_ (and the binary
>>in-memory image _is_ a derivative of the parts loaded into it) by a
>>_dependent_ third party, some of the responsibility for that act might
>>still lie with the distributor.
>
> But the GPL only covers distribution.

And copyright law covers derivatives.

> To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two
> things:

The whole hinges on the question whether he has done two things or
one.  Namely whether they can be legally considered completely
independent.

> distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and
> contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline.  Which of
> these requires a licence?

Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum