On 20/03/2019, Giovanni Mascellani <g...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Il 20/03/19 12:25, Giacomo Tesio ha scritto: >> The current construct is a violation of the GPL term as that code is >> derivative of GPL code for all intents and purposes. So much that it >> cannot even compile without the GPL code. > > I don't understand what does this matter. Copyright apply to thing > independently of whether they compile or not. [...]
Harry Potter is not Pulcinella. Hermion is not Colombina. If you use these names you do not borrow from Commons, from cultural archetypes and characters known to the public, but to specific Rowling creations. Arguing that your work is not derivative of Rowling one would sound ridiculous to any judge. This doesn't rule out your fandom by itself, but it IS a derivative work. Law might permit it or not, Rowling might tolerate it or not, but it IS evidently a derivative work. Just like if you take the Rowling book and want to write the script of a Hollywood film about the same history, you need her permission How this relates to compilation? If the GPL header at https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/lib/command.h is required by https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/babeld/babel_interface.c it means that it depends on its text, whose copyright holder gave you the right to use according to the GPL. It's exactly like using Harry Potter into your own fandom porn novel. Rowling might have something to object. ;-) Since you can't remove, say, INTERFACE_NODE from its babel_interface.c, and you got INTERFACE_NODE as GPL in command.h, babel_interface.c is a derivative of command.h and thus has to be released under GPL. > So this example really convinces me that FRR people are doing right, and > there is no reason for Debian to change anything there. Well... I hope to have clarified the misunderstanding, now. ;-) Giacomo
