[cc-community] GNU-GPL, makefiles, and non-distributed executables
Fred Benenson
fred.benenson at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 23:04:37 EST 2007
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but are you sure you guys have the right
list for this?
Or am I missing what this has to do with Creative Commons...
F
On Dec 14, 2007 10:29 PM, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
>
> > Greg London wrote:
> >> I think you missed the issue. Alice doesn't distribute a derivative
> >> of George's work, and therefore does not trigger the source code
> >> requirement.
> >
> > Does Alices app need Georges code to work?
> > In that case, she is making use of it.
>
> "work" and "use" are not covered by copyright.
> "derivative" is.
>
> It has been established that the interface to a subroutine call
> is purely functional. Therefore if Alice only interfaces to George's
> code by calling George's subroutines, it isn't a derivative.
>
> Third party vendors are allowed to make calls to Microsoft's
> windows library without getting microsofts permission because
> it is a purely functional interface, not a copyright issue.
>
> > Intellectual ninjitsu wouldn't have it any other way.
>
> I don't think you understand the various possible loopholes
> that can affect copyright law.
>
> > So if there is a copyright, of any sort, on a cake recipe,
>
> Very bad example because recipes are not copyrightable. Ever.
> They are purely functional. You can copyright the text around
> a recipe and bundle them up in a book with little stories and
> whatnot, and copyright the book, but the cake recipe itself
> is uncopyrightable.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20071214/53eaf13e/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list