Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:37:43 +0100 > Martin Dickopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I find it unconvincing to argue that a program is not a derivative work >> of a dynamic library just because this case is not properly covered by a >> non-limitative list of illustrations. > > The enumeration illustrates the way in which "based upon" > should be construed. A program in source code formar references > a library, but is not based upon the library in the sense > of the definition in 101 USC 17 (which would require an > adaptation, transformation, etc. of the material in the > library). A book that refers the user to a dictionary for > the definition of a number of words is not a derivative > work of that dictionary.
So why are there numerous court decisions that "deep linking" of web site material constitutes copyright infringement? > Both source code and dynamically linked executables refer to the > libraries (and other resources such as the OS). Once you claim that > a dynamically linked executable is a derivative work of the > libraries it "uses", you have precious few arguments left to argue > the source code is an independent work. You have equally few > arguments left to argue that programs aren't derivative works of the > Operating System they run on. Why do you think is there a special exception/clarification regarding execution of executables in the Linux kernel licence? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
