Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, "linking", generally > construed as "stitching together (normally executable) object (as > opposed to source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an > executable file" does NOT make a derivative work. Derivative works are > made when you have intelligent *transformation* of the original > work. Linking is not intelligent -- much au contraire, it's fully > automatic.
Hm. So the LGPL is completely useless in practice? I understand that the GPL has a rather broad approach. > So, no, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit -- IOW: the fact of > embedding the flasher and the flash in the same ELF file does not make > the combined work a derivative work on any of them; only a > "collective" work on both. I think you are right, we are talking about a collective work. But I still believe that the GPL demands the distribution of the flash image under GPL terms, when both image and flasher are distributed together. Quoting the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), clause Nr. 2, second paragraph and following: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program." The flash image is an identifiable part of the collective work "flasher+image", right? And the flasher would be a GPL program, on which the work "flasher+image" is based. So I think the last sentence of clause Nr. 2, second paragraph does apply here: the whole must be distributed under GPL terms. This doesn't depend on the applicable law (US copyright law? brazilian equivalent? german Urheberrecht?). The GPL is in essence a contract. If there is a clause in a contract, it has precedence over the law, as far as allowed by law. I believe this is universal (you may prove me wrong, at least in Germany there are binding rules and non-binding "default" rules in the law). And from this starting point, I don't see a reason why this clause should be forbidden by any one of the applicable laws, even if it re-defines some terms also used in national law. > Collective works are treated separately by copyright law. To > distribute a collective work, the distributor must comply with both > licenses individually (flasher=GPL, flash=proprietary). If the flash > albeit proprietary is redistributable, the combined ELF is Ok. The GPL seems to say something different in clause Nr. 2, last sentence. So the distributor is bound by contract to distribute everything under GPL. And since he is not allowed to do that, he may not distribute it at all, clause Nr. 7. As far as I understand, the LGPL has been created to avoid such deadlocks. I wouldn't insist that a judge would necessarily follow my understanding. But I think there is a certain risk that he/she would do so. And to avoid that risk, I would avoid GPL... Michael Below (not a DD, not a lawyer, not a d-l regular, no special knowledge in anglo-saxon copyright law) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
