[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Måns Rullgård) writes: >>> There have been some indications that a source distribution is >>> allowed, even if a binary distribution is not. Could someone >>> clarify? >> >> I must have missed the message that talked about this. My understanding >> is that the only case this might apply is when the source isn't actually >> intended for compilation (e.g., it's in book form). > > The argument is that the source code isn't derived from the library. > Names of functions are not normally covered by copyright. If they > were, GnuTLS couldn't have an OpenSSL compatible interface.
Sure. And I don't think anybody's told you that the framework, written in a clean-room fashion from API documentation, is a derivative work. The package of the framework and the plugins and the libraries, all set up to run together, however, is clearly a derivative work -- do we agree this far? The package of the framework and the plugins may or may not be a derivative work of the libraries, but it doesn't matter in most cases since the libraries are normally part of the OS -- see the text in the GPL about this. But for Debian, that exception doesn't apply: Debian distributes the whole OS. -Brian
