Lawrence Rosen scripsit: > When did I say no? A binary compiled from the entire tarball is a > derivative of the entire source module collection.
Of the entire collection, yes. But is it a derivative of *each* source module as well? > And each binary module compiled from each of its modules is a derivative > of its own individual source module. Clearly. > The real question I'm posing is: By doing this (these) compilations of a > source tarball that contains proprietary module X and open source module Y, > does the source or compiled version of X become a derivative work of Y? Which "compiled version of X"? X.o is clearly not a derivative of Y.c. However, is XY, the executable block of bits resulting from statically linking X.o and Y.o, a derivative of Y.c? That's the crux. If yes, then at least part of the FSF's reading of the GPL is correct; if no, then your reading is correct. -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, http://www.reutershealth.com things are just as they are. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
