On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 20:54, Joe Orton wrote: > > I'm not sure how you view apr_dbm_gdbm.c as a derivative work of GDBM. Is > > it the fact that it calls some C functions qualifies as a derivative work? > > Well the more I think about it the more clear-cut it gets :) > apr_dbm_gdbm.c is based on GDBM: it is derived from the GDBM source code > (gdbm.h), it will not compile without GDBM, it does not exist except to > be used with GDBM. It is no mere coincidence that the symbols match up, > and that when you compile the file it actually does something useful.
This would make the use of any OS header files a derived work of the OS, I can't imagine you think this is the case. > I'm a bit surprised this is a contentious issue: this is how the GPL is > and always has been interpreted. It is illegal to redistribute modules > for the Linux kernel except under the terms of the GPL because such > modules are derived works of the Linux kernel by virtue of using its > interfaces. This is no different. Huh? So how do you explain the existence of propietary modules, the ones that once loaded make a certain 'tainted' keyword appear? Sander
