[cc-community] GNU-GPL, makefiles, and non-distributed executables
rob at robmyers.org
rob at robmyers.org
Mon Dec 17 04:57:07 EST 2007
Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>:
> Eve's code is merely "designed to work with" George's work. However,
> that is "use" and is not covered.
Eve's work is object files that are designed to be useful only when
linked against George's work. This is not working with, this is
combining with and creating a derivative of. It is an issue of
copyright not functionality or interaction.
GNU argue that even RPC and pipes create a derivative if the program
has "carnal knowledge" of the internals of the library. This isn't
unlimited, named pipes with dumb command passing is OK for example.
> "Referencing" a work is NOT "including" it (imagine the consequences if
> it were!). Lists of bookmarks are a trivial example of why that would be
> bad as are scientific citations, bibliographies, etc.
Linking creates a derivative work and this is an act covered by copyright.
Linking actually produces a combined "text" containing the whole of
the work interleaved. This is different from bibliographic references.
> Sure, okay. That's a moral argument. But that's not what Greg asked. He
> asked what was *legal*. And anyway, you have to draw the line somewhere.
GNU have historically drawn the line somewhere before distributing
object files to be linked against GPL-covered software as the NeXT
example shows.
- Rob.
More information about the cc-community
mailing list