On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, John Cowan wrote:
Because G+H is not merely G concatenated with H,
Anybody who concatenates any source files specifically .c well go get
them, they are do something bad. My points have always been and shall
remain associated interface definition files aka header files,
Brian --
I agree with Larry that mere aggregations are collective works (at least
in general; I would not discount the possibility that one might find some
nuance of collective work that is not present in some mere aggregation).
Also, I'd note that not all collective works are mere aggregations.
If one merely copies the original work unchanged, that falls under
section 1 of the GPL, not section 2.
Yes, but only source code: verbatim copies of the Program's source code
(from section 1)
-- Scott
__
Scott K. Peterson
Corporate Counsel
Hewlett-Packard Company
I agree with the outcome of the book and magazine examples, but for a
completely different reason: one involves copying the work of both authors
and the other does not. I'm going to use these examples as an excuse to
discuss some of the issues to which I believe people refer when they talk
about
Andre Hedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However - the issue is not talking about .exe or .com files, but
pluggin objects using the well known and publish API of the Linux Kernel.
Why do you keep harping on this particular issue? Is anybody telling
you that you can not distribute your
On Friday 17 January 2003 09:57 am, Rod Dixon wrote:
Larry List members: at your convenience, please download the current
draft of the OSD's proposed model code.
I have one nit.
4: Source code that is exceptionally difficult to read either because it is
not documented or is cryptically
6 matches
Mail list logo
