[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:59:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Hyman Rosen <> wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
>> The an original creative arrangement of materials in a compilation
>> makes it eligible for copyright.

> "Compilation" meaning the output produced by the computerized
> programming language translator known as a "compiler". Which
> should have been obvious from the context.

ISTM that a lot of the nonsense emanating from this newsgroup is due to
some people getting confused between the different meanings of the
words "compilation" and "linking", and possibly others.

If a bit of a copyright act talks about a "compilation", meaning a work
consisting of a collection, rearrangement, and organisation of
previously existing works, it is dumbness of high order to think that
this bit of act applies to a "compilation" which is an object code file
or the process of making one.

It wouldn't be clever, either, to think that it applied to the
"compilation" (i.e. the composing of) a crossword puzzle.

It is just as dumb to believe that arguments about "linking", the use of
hyperlinks in web pages, have validity to "linking", the process of
fusing object code files into a tightly integrated whole.

Thankfully, judges are perspicacious enough to understand these

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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