[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 09:21:16 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Hyman Rosen <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> The only other components in the executable will be "boilerplate"

> No. Those components may include entire implementations of things
> like formatting floating point numbers into strings, trigonometric
> functions, calendar functions, and so forth.

They needn't do so, for example, if these things are in a dynamically
linked library which isn't part of the executable.  But these library
components often will be linked in.

>> OK.  You're saying, I think, that this "boilerplate" code gives the
>> boilerplate's writer some degree of copyright in the executable
>> program.

> No. I'm saying that the library code which is linked in to the
> executable program continues to fall under the copyright of its
> holder, and may only be copied under permission of that holder.
> If you wish to make copies of your executable, you must have this
> permission.

And as you and John Hasler have explained, this permission comes with
the tools, otherwise nobody would buy them.  Thanks!

>> It differs from software, though, in that the cover isn't necessary for
>> the book's purpose.  The "boilerplate" code is absolutely required for
>> the program to work.

> But copyright law doesn't care about whether your program works!
> A broken program is just as copyrightable as a working one.

And a good job too, otherwise not many programs would be
copyrightable.  :-)

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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