Re: GPL question

[Richard Tobin]

In article <85d50zy3d0.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

>> But the GPL only covers distribution.
>
>And copyright law covers derivatives.

So what authorises you to make a derivative of a GPLed program?  I
thought the FSF's view was that anyone could do that without a
licence.  If I create a modified version of Emacs and don't distribute
it, what allows me to?

>> 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.

So presumably the idea is that the two acts together constitute
distribution of a derivative work?  If so - to go back to my earlier
example - is the distribution of the Aquamacs source, distribution of a
derivative work of MacOS X?

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.