* Martin Pitt (mp...@debian.org) [110213 20:21]: > Andreas Barth [2011-02-13 19:18 +0100]: > > from. "derived from" happens already if the packages uses .h-files > > from the gpl-library, runs the "link stage" again the so-files during > > compilation etc. > > So you think "linking" in the license sense just applies to the time > when we build the package (and have the header files available), and > not any more to the runtime stage when we execute the program? If that
Header files *might* contain more than just structures, e.g. #defines which might contain code. If a header file contains just structures and names, and no code / whatever else, then it just describes an api and for people who don't believe in interface copyrights (like the FSF) it isn't copyrightable. Also during link time, some data from the .so-file pointed at might be included in the resulting binary by the linker. So that makes the resulting binary derived from the .so. > offers a legally acceptable workaround, I'm happy to apply it. :-) That's my understanding. As I said, I'm happy to pass that via d-legal or whoever else - I don't claim to necessarily be always right, but that's what I learned during the last few years. > I'd still have a weird feeling about it, though, as the end result for > the user is exactly the same.. I agree about the feeling. The legal world however has lots of strange parts. > > So, as we don't deliver binary packages that are derived from the > > libreadline-code (as libreadline isn't part of the source environment > > used during building packages), that's ok. > So I don't understand why merely building against an API already makes > a program a "derived work" of that API; it's merely using that API, > after all? Basically, because a) the .h-files might contain code (though in some cases .h might be irrelevant for copyright, but one has to look at the file) b) data from the .so is included. It's hard to get away from "derived" if the .h/.so is installed in the build environment. If however the .h/.so isn't installed there, I don't see how the process of building could violate the license of an non-installed programm (well, if the license is DFSG-free - it's easy to write an license that says "if you use this code once, we own your soul", but that's something else). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
