Hi Bob, Bob Hood <bho...@comcast.net> writes:
> Just to kick the hornets' nest: Yes, indeed. I also don't think Qt folks are particularly interested in this debate. So I am going to reply to the list once. If you want to continue this thread, please reply off-list (I will after this reply). > [...] the Court of Appeals ruled that a program "must incorporate a > portion of the copyrighted work in some form" (which I actually do > agree with). I haven't read the case/ruling and I am not a lawyer, but think about it this way: for one platform you linked your program statically to the library while for the other you linked it dynamically. Now, according to your reasoning, one is a derivative work while the other is not. What exactly has changed, conceptually, in your program's dependence on the functionality provided by the library to give a different answer in these two cases? You program still depends on the functionality (and presence) or the library to work, correct? What perhaps the case refers to is *dynamic loading* of a dynamic library. For example, if your program provide a "hook" for the user to load some extra logic (i.e., a plugin) but otherwise does not depend on the plugin's functionality in any way, then I would agree this is not a derivative work. Boris _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
