David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
> the case of GCC). The C library, however, is linked with the
> executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation. The C library,
> however, is licensed under the LGPL.
Function calls have no impact on copyright status of combined work.
It's still a compilation ("mere aggregation" in GNU speak), not a
derivative work ("modified work as a whole" in GPL 2b speak).
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
"Some have claimed that an application program that needs a library
for its operation is a derivative work of that library. They take
that position because the application program is based on the
library because it was written to use the subroutines and other
aspects of the library.
Such a position is misplaced. ...
It could be argued that the component program really does include
portions of the library that it uses data structures that are
passed as parameters, or even the parameter lists themselves. But
elements dictated by external considerations are filtered out when
trying to determine whether there is copyright infringement.
No other conclusion makes sense. If it were not the case, then any
program using the applications program interfaces (APIs) of an
operating system could be considered a derivative work of that
operating system. And, under the exclusive right to prepare
derivative works, the copyright owner of an operating system such
as Microsoft Windows could control who was allowed to write
programs for that operating system."
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
