Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor
> > libschily or libscg are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this reason,
> > there is no problem with the fact that mkisofs links against libschily
> > and libscg.
>
> The FSF certainly believes (and I think it is supported by at least US
> copyright law) that the complete work of mkisofs linked against
> libschily and libscg (i.e. the binary form, rather than the source) is a
> single work which is a derivative work of all three individual (source)
> works. Therefore, it must be distributed under terms which are
> compatible with the licences of all three.
Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a sufficient
creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course not create a derived
work.
In addition: if ever, mkisofs could be a derived work if libschily but not vice
vcersa.
Do you really like to tell us that compiling:
main()
{
printf("hello world\n");
}
makes libc a derived work of the program "hello world"?
Jörg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
