Andrew Suffield writes: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:14:32PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > > The rest of your post is either intentionally or incompetently > > misleading, since Java's idea of binary compatibility means that a > > compiled Eclipse package does not contain any copyrightable portion of > > the class libraries that provide declarations to the compiler. That > > is what determines whether the binary package is a derivative work of > > the class library package. > > That's not entirely true. The binary package is a derivative work of > the class library package if: > > (a) it contains a literal creative part of the class library, > or a derivative of such a part > > or > > (b) it contains a literal creative part of the java source or a > derivative of such (pretty much a given or the compiler wouldn't > be much use), and the java source is a derivative of the class > library
Does (b) refer to the use of features that are specific to one implementation (or at least one license)? Or do you mean something broader? > About the only thing I've seen that will do (a) is static linking in > an ELF object, or anything comparable. (b) is the one that we normally > deal with in Debian. > > [Always remember: derivation is a transitive relation. If a is derived > from b, and b is derived from c, then a is derived from c] This is not true. The parts that make A a derivative of B may be disjoint from the parts that make B a derivative of C. (When those works are virally licensed, the license is transitive.) For example, Jo publishes a novel featuring a character called Cowboy, and uses (with appropriate permission) the famous Batman character. That novel is a derivative of various Batman works. If Lou publishes a novel featuring the Cowboy character with no mention of Batman, it is a derivative of Jo's novel, and needs Jo's permission; it is not a derivative of the Batman works. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
