Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[David Kastrup]

<telford@xenon.triode.net.au> writes:

> In gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > My eyesight seems to get worse.  I fail to see a quote of a court
> > ruling stating that extracted symbol tables would not fall under
> > the original copyright.
> 
> I'm pretty sure a symbol table would fall under the "phonebook"
> ruling that a table of facts presented in obvious
> (i.e. non-creative) format and ordering cannot be considered a
> creative work.

Who claimed that it was?  But it is clearly a derivative (even a
mechanical derivative) of a creative work, and so the copyright for
the original creative work applies.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum