David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > [...] > >> Once you start transforming it through compilers and linkers the > >> picture might change, depending on how much of the library is included > >> in the transformed source code. If, for example, you execute 'cc -E', > >> the resulting source code will contain the whole of "stdio.h", and as > >> such it's now most definitely something that is affected by the stdio.h > >> copyright (I leave it to Alexander to define if it's a derivative work, > >> a compilation, or anything he wishes). > > > > Mechanical transformation never create derivative works. > > Sure, but we are not talking about "mechanical transformation", but > mechanical _combination_. "cc -E" _includes_ stdio.h and other stuff.
Whatever, retard. > > > Legally it's just copying of the original expression without > > transforming/modifying creativity resulting in a derivative work. So > > your 'cc -E' would simply "mere aggregate" (in GNU speak) original > > protected expression from multiple separate and independent works > > just like tar (same files tar'ed) would do it (legal effect is the > > same). > > In Terekhov-Lala-land. "Aggregation" is not a term used for creating > a functional unit with inseparable components. Inseparable as in what? Man oh man. Ever heard of postmortem analysis of core dumps, idiot? regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
