Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think] >>> >>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [snip] >>>> You are ignoring the >>>> creative act performed by the programmer who arranged calls to >>>> functions within libc. That was creative effort on his part which >>>> critically involves a copy of libc. >>> >>> As is the creation of a critical essay on libc. But that's not a >>> derivative work either. >> >> But an annotated edition of libc is. A program seems far more similar >> to an annotated edition than to a critical essay -- since it includes >> a copy of the library, after all, and pointers into it. > > Now you stopped making sense. A program includes only references to a > library, not the library itself.
The program makes neither functional nor creative sense without the library component. A binary -- which we usually think of as a program -- is only part of a program. All of the libraries included in it are part of it also; that's why we ship them along. > A distribution, e.g. Debian, might include both the program and the > library. I don't see a problem with distributing a collection of > programs, where some of them can be combined in ways that violate > some license, as long as all of them still have legitimate uses. I don't see a problem with that either. But the default library loaded for some soname should probably be legal to *distribute* as a combination with anything Debian is distributing set to load it. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
