Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 05:52:00PM +0200, Claus F?rber wrote: >> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong.
> The one where you assumed that dynamic linking was relevent. I've been > saying that all along. You were also saying that C is "probably" a derivative of O: | I do not know how a program that really used openssl, calling its | functions, could avoid being a derivative. I can't rule it out but (The typical case for dynamic linking is that there are function calls.) For a high-level argumentation like mine, it does not matter whether the legal link between C and O is created by dynamic linking, incorporating "function calls", or anything else, the result is always the same: If O can be replaced by M, the assumption that B/C is a derivative of O, must be wrong. (Of course, this is only true if you can make an M that is not a derivative of O either, which depends on wheter the interface is elegible for copyright.) Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
