On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:21:51 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > So in answer to your direct question: the unlinked binary isn't > derived from any of them. The complete binary, including its > libraries, included whichever one Debian shipped it with.
No, it's not a derivative work in a copyright sense at any stage. That's a phrase with a legal meaning, and combining by any means that isn't itself a creative act doesn't create one. The "derivative work" part of copyright was created to prevent people from ripping off the author and publisher of the original work by a) plagiarism and b) unauthorized sequels. It can't be used to prevent chapter-and-verse reference to the work's content, retail bundling of the work (published according to a valid license) with another work that critiques it (even if the critical work is useless without the original), or use of the ideas in the work under the names that the work gives them -- and courts have mapped these same limits into software contexts. There are other mechanisms available under contract law to limit a license to fit the author's intentions more closely, but the GPL explicitly eschews them. [snip] > If it causes even one person to understand that the generation or > transportation of a copy is what matters, and not technical > workarounds, I'll consider it useful. If it causes even one person to examine the legal precedents and form his or her own judgement about whether the GPL means what it is often said to mean, I'll consider it useful. Cheers, - Michael
