From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The function prototypes in header files almost certainly cannot be
copyrighted, thus there's no point in licensing their use. In fact, you
can
almost always call an exported function by ordinal number, thus I wouldn't
even have to include the
A header that is pure API (only function declarations) are in
this class. The
names of the functions get copied over into the resulting object
file, but
the header file itself does not. I believe that there was a case
once that
ruled you couldn't copyright an API.
Are there more
On Saturday 24 February 2001 06:28 am, Fred Patrick wrote:
Are there more details about not being able to copyright an API?
Does API in this usage apply to CORBA interfaces as well?
If so it doesn't make much sense to me.
I wish I had more details. I am only going by my recollection. I
-Original Message-
From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 1:45 PM
To: Fred Patrick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What is Copyleft?
On Saturday 24 February 2001 06:28 am, Fred Patrick wrote:
Are there more details about not being
On Saturday 24 February 2001 12:13 pm, Fred Patrick wrote:
I am not so concerned about someone using the API but rather that they
modify the API specification. In the CORBA world, I do not care that
someone implements an interface but I do care if they make changes but
still purport to be
Absent that though, here is a hypothetical... Can you
copyright your personal
name in such a way that people could not legally address mail to you?
No.
/Larry Rosen
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Is the argument that a run-time link to external code creates a derivative
work (in the sense that the copyright statutes define a derivative work)
of
[DJW:]
I don't think so. It think the argument is about taking
How can that create a derivative work?
Well, the question is why wouldn't it?
Because you're not modifying the original work. You're not adding
anything
to it. The two parts (the Program and the Library) aren't ever combined
into one work. If you would argue that they are combined
Imagine I have two novels.
On page 100 of Novel A, there is an instruction: Open up Novel B, turn to
Chapter 7. When finished, come back to this point and continue reading.
As the reader, (the processor in this analogy) I follow these
instructions.
My "thread of execution" takes me from
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Interesting point. In the ordinary course of programming, I suspect there
would be no derivative work created, hence the GPL should provide no
obstacle for distributing the program as open source. As you mentioned,
[DJW:] In
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Interesting point. In the ordinary course of programming, I suspect there
would be no derivative work created, hence the GPL should provide no
obstacle for distributing the program as open source. As you mentioned,
there could be a
Dave, I don't have the LGPL right in front of me, if you could quote the
provision you are referring to, it might help us respond. Even so, which
part of the license do you think is disobeyed, and why?
Rod
From: Frank Hecker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
makes a distinction between licenses
I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
the same library?
Rod
Dave J Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I had
From: "Dave J Woolley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or you link it against the dynamic version to create a dynamically
*linked* executable, which can load the full text of the library
and run time.
There are three possibilities here:
- unlinked (LGPL gives a dispensation on the headers used);
In
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand your last sentence, and it sounds as if you might be
making an important distinction. I am confused by your reference to linked
to static version and "unlinked objects." How could both be occurring with
the same library?
Dave J Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, since glibc is available as a dynamic library, most uses of glibc
do not conflict with the LGPL. The only way to conflict would be link
against the static version of glibc and distribute the resulting
binary without distributing the unlinked
On Friday 23 February 2001 08:32 am, Dave J Woolley wrote:
[DJW:] In the normal course of programming the host
program will be combined with the header files (or typelib)
from the libary to produce the object code and the further
reference will be made to the
Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
What is a Copyleft?
The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about
Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws
of the license is that:
"It is not a true copyleft, because it a
begin Ryan S. Dancey quotation:
Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
What is a Copyleft?
Your underlying point is well-taken, and perceptive: RMS's recent usage
of the term indeed appears to depart from its prior (and customary)
meaning, in objecting to the ability to link
S. Dancey wrote:
Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
What is a Copyleft?
The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about
Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws
of the license is that:
"It is not a
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
Here's a question I thought I'd never have to ask.
What is a Copyleft?
The reason I ask this question relates to RMS's recent pronouncements about
Apple's psuedo-open license terms. He says, in part, that one of the flaws
of t
From: Ryan S. Dancey [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
If I write a copyleft free program for Windows, I should be able to load
and
link at runtime to any DLL in the system, regardless of whether or not
that
DLL is free code or not, shouldn't I? How else could a Windows program
ever
On Thursday 22 February 2001 02:16 pm, John Cowan wrote:
No, DLLs are in the same address space as the main program. They are
ordinary code that instead of being mapped at link time, is mapped at
the beginning of run time. Calls to a routine in a DLL are essentially
ordinary subroutine
Inadvertantly sent just to Mr. Dixon - my apologies to him for the double
post.
From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ I said, in reference to various library linking examples:]
How can that create a derivative work?
Well, the question is why wouldn't it?
Because you're not
On Thursday 22 February 2001 10:37 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
I'm suggesting that the definition of a derivative work can't include data
being passed between two independent pieces of code, via file, via a
network, or via an internal process communication. Making a function call
is not the
"Ryan S. Dancey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When you make a function call in compile-time linked code, you are
creating a derivative work, because the function code itself will be
compiled into the Program and inextricably combined with your code.
When the two are separated by a run-time
From: "David Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Making a function call
is not the same thing as actually incorporating the code of that
function
into the body of the calling code.
Though I'm on your "side", there is a big difference between data transfer
and code execution. Transferring data
27 matches
Mail list logo
