Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

[rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
>  > then yes you do.


> It is entirely clear that for a work to be derivative, it must
> incorporate significant portions of the original work. Code
> written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative
> work of that code by the definition given in the law.
>
> You don't like that? Too bad. Get the law changed. And then
> be prepared when Microsoft sues Samba out of existence.

Hyman! You sound like an eminently reasonable person who has read the
law and then thoughtfully crafted a cogent reply.

Feverish today?

Sincerely,
Rjack

"While computer programs are not specifically listed. . . the legislative 
history leaves no doubt that Congress intended them to be considered literary 
works."; Computer Associates International v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (United States 
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1992)