Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Actually, it also replaces macros. Looks like you have run out of arguments again. >> > 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? As in: "the original can't be extracted whole again from the final product and identifiable traces of it are scattered throughout the whole resulting file". > Man oh man. You can say that again. > Ever heard of postmortem analysis of core dumps, idiot? Now you are really striking wild. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
