[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:13:17 -0500
User-agent: slrn/ (Debian)

On 2008-09-16, Rjack <> wrote:
> It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
> program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
> the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work. Some people think
> that compiling module1.c, module2.c, . . . into "-o prgm" translates
> the source code into a derivative work.
> e.g.: gcc -o prgm module1.c module2.c . . .
> There is absolutely *no* spark of originality added as gcc assembles the
> source code into an executable -- something thousands of people do also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.

Something you would be aware of if you had half a clue to rant with in
this area. The other half a clue is the fact that GCC is specifically
exempt from the strong GPL.


    Oracle and EA can figure this out. Why can't you?

     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \

 Posted Via Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

reply via email to

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