On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:11:12 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henrik S. Hansen) wrote:
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The answers in the GPL FAQ are the opinion of the FSF's > > legal counsel (hopefully). > > Right. Which is an indicator that they have analysed the matters in > depth, and that they have the competence to do so. But not that they'll be followed by the court. They are however a clear indication of what might cause them to take you to court. > > The OS is equally "required to make the program work", but I'm sure > > you can see that claiming that thence every program is a derivative > > work of the OS is not going to be very productive for Free Software > > authors (and users). > > Using standard Unix/POSIX system calls is not considered a derivative > work. Here's the definition of a derivative work, taken (without permission, but fair use (still) applies :-) from 101 USC 17: | A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such | as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, | motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, | condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, | or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, | elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original | work of authorship, is a "derivative work". You see, there's no mention of POSIX or "being needed to make the program work". I think one can reasonably say that a statically linked executable is covered by "any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted" as far as its components are concerned. But a dynamically linked program does not contain a single line of code of the libraries it calls, merely information on how to access the library. I cannot find anything in the above citation that would even hint at it being a derivative work of the library. > > The law should not be the only yardstick for our behaviour, something > > we, as a society, tend to forget too often nowadays. > > Well spoken. I couldn't agree more. Thanks. The real issue here is not a legal, but a moral one. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
