Alan Mackenzie wrote:
The notion of "inclusion" doesn't make sense when talking about computer programs. Tell me, is an intricate C Macro "included in" or "referred to by" the extension? What about a data structure it uses?
Referenced by. Macros are directions to the compiler on how to translate code to which they are applied. Similarly, data structures are ideas and inventions, not text. You can patent them, but you cannot copyright them, and using data structures does not subject a program to the copyrights of the support library. There might be a case made for things like C++ template libraries subjecting compiled programs to their copyright when those libraries come with large amounts of code that appear translated into the output with minor parameter substitutions. Perhaps sufficiently large C macros might qualify as well.
In that case, the extension is derived from the source code of the data structures, and thus isn't a "separate" new work.
You are again using the word "derived" in it English sense, which is not relevant. Copyright recognizes the concept of a "derivative work" (not a "derived" work, which has no meaning in copyright law). A derivative work is a work that is a significant auctorial transformation of an existing work, and the concept of derivative work exists in order to handle the issues of copyrights belonging to both the original author and to the transforming author. Copyright does apply to characters created by an author. You might try to apply the novel and amusing argument that the data structures of a program are equivalent to the characters of a novel, and so their use in another program violates the original author's copyright. You would lose, though. Courts like interoperability and frown on using copyright to prevent it. > Interoperability has nothing to do with what's been discussed so far. It does - using the data structures of another program in order to interact with it is exactly interoperability. If the copyright holder of a GPLed program is attempting to deprive the author of a program which interoperates with it (such as a plug-in) of his copyright rights, that is exactly trying to prevent interoperability using copyright.
One of the central aims of the GPL is to promote interoperability, as you're well aware.
I'm not aware of any such thing. The aims of the GPL are that users of computer programs should have the right to run, read, modify, and share those programs. Where does interoperability enter the picture? _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
