Tassilo Horn wrote: [... GNUtian dak's blathering ...]
> Well, it seems there's more than plain aggregation. For example there > are classes in the EPL-licensed core that extend classes of our GPLed > library. That constitutes a derivative work only in the GNU Republic in the nearby alternative universe. As for our reality, see http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html (III.B. Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison) http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html (VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations) "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. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
