Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 06:41 +0000, wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote:
> 
> >  What is relevant is:
> >   Is the new work the same without including the file?
> >   Is it 100% the same? I bet the compiler would say it isn't...
> 
> >   So it is a derivate work.
> 
> This is a much stricter definition than has been applied to any literary
> work. Consider that halfway through my book I write:
> 
>    To fully understand this discussion you should read Foobar's excellent
>    manuscript titled "Bazzing the Floodle" which provides background.
> 
> I do not need permission from Foobar's publisher to include such a reference,
> it falls well within the grounds of fair use.
> 
> Not too many things in copyright law depend on the "100% the same" metric.

Of course not. But not having that phrase there doesn't make the book
utterly unreadeable (or in the case of software, not even compilable).

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part