Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> >>> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but >>> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a >>> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it >>> in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but >>> to the process of building a new program which has libfoo as a >>> component. >>> Additionally, the program ultimately delivered to the user isn't X >>> with some minor bits of Y. It contains big chunks of Y -- one per >>> function used, at least -- directly copied. Just being in a different >>> memory space isn't enough to change the relationship between the >>> creative parts of the works. The program vim encompasses a copy of >>> libc. >>> -Brian >>> >> What about the case where there's a common ABI, such as Java written >> against Sun's standard API, then compiled into Java Bytecode? >> >> In this case, writing against Y is creative, but when the end-user >> runs the program, is Java's run-time-linking creative or mechanical? > > What Java's doing is mechanical. But what Debian *instructed* it to > do, by shipping Y and the Java run-time together such that when you > ask for Y to be installed, you get Y and the JVM... that's clearly > creative. > >> Does this change when the program could also be linked with A, W, or >> Z, all of which implement the same ABI? > > No. But it does matter which one Debian ships it with. > >> Does this change if there's no way to tell which of A, W, Y or Z X was >> originally written against? > > The author's intent matters. If he writes against X, and Debian ships > with Z instead, then that is an artistic choice on the Project's > part. So if the author's intent isn't obvious, but it *could* be in > the set of legitimate intents, I don't see a problem. > >> Does this change if the program is aggregated with W and Z, but not Y? > > You've now lost me in letters, and I don't understand this question. > But the rest of these caused me to clarify my thinking on the matter, > and to realize that there's always a person in the system who's > imagining a combined work on an end-user system and taking action to > put it there. This might be the original author, Debian or some other > distributor, or the end-user. If it's anyone but the end-user, then > that combined work is being distributed.
So you are basically saying that aiding or hinting the end-user to create these would-be derivative works is enough to be violating the license? Then how can things like thepiratebay.org be legal? It is also legal to sell all the ingredients for a bomb, along with instructions needed to build one. However, building and using the bomb is most likely illegal. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
