[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: Hyman Rosen
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:58:38 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 8/9/2010 5:51 PM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
From the technical standpoint, dynamic linking may be seen as a
convenient and fully automated way to create derivative works in
the computer's virtual memory on the fly at run time.

Note that the GPL gives you unconditional permission to
run, copy, and modify covered works that you do not convey,
so even if you are correct (which you are probably not) it
does not matter what the program does when it runs with
respect to copying and distributing the program.

> However,
as it's fully automated, it should rather be called “mere
aggregation” (since there's no creativity involved)?

I don't think this aggregation is mere enough. But it doesn't

One more point is that the builder will typically use the
accompanying .h-files to build the executable, yet again
creating a derivative work, which copyright should cover.

No. A derivative work is created by a significant act of authorship
transforming an existing work. Even if compilation were not an
automatic process, it is not typically the case that building a
program using the header files of a library copies copyrightable
amounts of the header files into the compiled program, which would
render that program a combined work of its source and the library

Yet another failed argument is that the inclusion of library
function names in the program as part of their invocation requires
copyright permission. This fails because in general there is only
one straightforward way to invoke such a function, and therefore
the expression of that call is not creative and thus not subject
to copyright.

reply via email to

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