[in response to a quote from the GPL.] On Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 10:29:36AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > Surely you can see that is circular. To paraphrase, "The program is the > program or a derivative work of the program". There is no definition there, > unless you consider "A rose is a rose" to be a definition.
That's what the GPL says. I admit that the definition of a computer program from chapter 1 of 17 USC makes it clearer. > > The act of running the Program is not restricted > This is going to make it extremely difficult to convince anyone that > the act of running th program through its intended interface, or > packaging the program with a work that runs it through its intended > interface, can possibly create a derived work. I've already addressed this point: running the program didn't create the derived work -- authoring (and distributing) the program did. Running the program just illustrates the nature of the program. -- Raul
