** Andrew Suffield :: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:22:07PM -0300, Humberto Massa Guimar?es > wrote: > > 3.3. it seems to me that it's absurd to think, for instance, > > that Debian cannot dynamic link a GPLd program with OpenSSL. > > Why? Because if I write a completely-compatible MassaSSL library > > and install it in my system just in the same > > places/names/sonames/whatever OpenSSL is installed, this would > > change the copyright status of _the_ _program_!! > > This says that there can be no such thing as copyright > infringement for creating a derivative of a piece of software, > because you can always replace the original with a > reimplementation that wouldn't be infringement.
my knowledge of the English language is still worse than I tought, because I do not have any recollection of meaning what you said _at_ _all_. Remember: DERIVATIVE <==> TRANSFORMATION. > > While it may be an interesting legal theory that copyright > infringement in software can only apply to verbatim copying (and > one that has been proposed before by various crackpots), I would > not like to rely on it in court, because it's absurd. I have not said _at_ _all_ something absurd as you state in your paragraph above. Calling me (directly or indirectly) a crackpot will not change this. I do know what I'm talking about and I think you are not being polite. > > I'll leave it as an exercise for the students to find where the > argument went wrong; the mere existence of a flawed conclusion is > enough to convince me that it went wrong *somewhere*. Go back and > do it again in a manner that concludes derivative works are > normally infringement, and explains why this case is different. The problem here is that you got to a flawed conclusion that I did not state at all, so the error resides entirely in your parser, AFAIK. You seem to be saying that if a program has x = MD5(a, b, c, d); in its text, then it *is* a derivative work of OpenSSL. What I said is exactly the opposite of this: the presence of the above line does not imply at all that some program is an OpenSSL derivative. And it's not. The usage of a library by a program does NOT transform said library in ANY aspect. My point is exactly that, throughout all my argument: "a work based on the Program" <==> "derivative work under copyright law" <==> "the result of an intellectualy-novel transformation applied over the original work". "Usage of a library, especially thru its published API" != "transformation applied over the library" ==> "usage of a library" != "a work based on the Program" ==> "usage of a library" != "said library must be GPL-compatible" Maybe my English was clearer now? Mind you, the problem with ike-scan (today on-list) was exactly this: it (optionally) calls MD5 and/or SHA1 from OpenSSL, offering an alternative implementation if OpenSSL is not available (OpenSSL's implementation being better performant). No court that I know of would regard ike-scan as being a derivative work (nor a "work based on") OpenSSL. And I had my share of court work. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
