[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:25:15 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Hyman Rosen <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> prgm clearly is a derivative work of all the various modules.
> No it isn't. A derivative work is a transformed form of an
> original work that accomplishes the same purpose.

All the library parts accomplish their intended purpose in the binary,
and compiling and linking their source transforms them into the binary.

> For example, translation to another language, or writing a screenplay
> of a novel. In the Harry Potter decision, the judge ruled that the
> Lexicon was not a derivative work even though it had copious amounts
> of direct copying from the novels and sourcebooks, because the Lexicon
> did not accomplish the same thing as the other books, namely to tell
> the story of Harry Potter.

But compiling and linking a library without patching it all around
definitely accomplishes the intended purpose of the library.

In short: I read and understand your words and explanations, but they
don't seem to apply at all.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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