Re: Something about Less General Public License

[Byron A Jeff]

In article <449FE008.989D0431@web.de>,
Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

Wow! The Eye of the Empire has finally turn to little ole me!

>Byron A Jeff wrote:
>[...]
>> Which would be accomplished by releasing your code as LGPL since your
>> code is derivative from original LGPL code.

I think there's enough context left to discuss the point.

>OP said that "We got a new library by modifying the LGPL code and 
>adding some our own code." Modified LGPL code aside for a moment, what
>makes you think that their own code (I take it that he means some code
>under independent copyright, and not the modified LGPL code)

I took it to mean that he started with the LGPL code base and added code
to it. I also took it to mean that his code could not function 
independantly from the original LGPL code base.

So just to be clear by asking a question. If I generate a function
library of 50 routines, and you add 3 routines that cannot function
independantly from my 50 routines, then you're stating that your
3 routines are a wholly independant work from my 50? How can it be
an independant work if it cannot function in isolation?

> is a derivative from original LGPL code?
>
>Brainwashed GNUtias are fond of jumping to baseless and utterly false 
>conclusions...

I don't believe this reference is GNUtian (EMPHESIS MINE):

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html

VI.D.3. Section 117 Adaptations

"Most computer programs are covered by a series of copyrights, each coming
into being when a portion of the program is WRITTEN OR MODIFIED. The
copyright on each nontrivial modification IS AS A DERIVATIVE WORK OF SOME
PREEXISTENT PROGRAM. One of THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF A COPYRIGHT OWNER is the
RIGHT TO CONTROL THE PREPARATION OF ANY DERIVATIVE WORKS, so generally only
somebody with the permission of the copyright owner can modify a computer
program."

Right out of Section 117 that you so love to quote.

BAJ