[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:37:02 +0200

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> I suspect this confusion is engendered deliberately, to a large extent.

Alan, I do remind you, again, that you are on record trying deliberately
and/or illiterately to conflate the copyright law term "derivative work"
(which you persistently misspell as "derived work") with something akin
to "embryo ... _derived_ from the egg and sperm"

Under the same line of "reasoning", do you also believe that "linking"
between computer program works is akin to sex without condoms (and that
it is not oral or anal) and if so, when are when are we going to see a
video showing you eating something from your foot akin to
<>, Alan?

Seriously, consider:

"Some free software communities say that linking to their code
automatically means that your program is a derivative work. Is this the
position of the Eclipse Foundation?

No, the Eclipse Foundation interprets the term "derivative work" in a
way that is consistent with the definition in the U.S. Copyright Act, as
applicable to computer software. Therefore, linking to Eclipse code
might or might not create a derivative work, depending on all of the
other facts and circumstances. 

I"m a programmer not a lawyer, can you give me a clear cut example of
when something is or is not a derivative work?

If you have made a copy of existing Eclipse code and made a few minor
revisions to it, that is a derivative work. If you"ve written your own
Eclipse plug-in with 100% your own code to implement functionality not
currently in Eclipse, then it is not a derivative work. Scenarios
between those two extremes will require you to seek the advice of your
own legal counsel in deciding whether your program constitutes a
derivative work.

For clarity, merely interfacing or interoperating with Eclipse plug-in
APIs (without modification) does not make an Eclipse plug-in a
derivative work."

"If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the EPL and
distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
Program, must I make the source code to my module available in
accordance with the terms of the EPL?

No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program."


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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