Unfortunately, you started off wrong and ended with a questionable observation. First, it is not well settled that a binary is a derivative of source; that is akin to saying a copy is a derivative of the original. In a metaphysical sense, we can debate the point, but there is no debate in the copyright sense.
As for Eben, his point is framed far out of context. - Rod --------- Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org This email never should be construed as legal advice. > >The sticky point is this: > > It's settled that a binary is a derivative work of > its source. It's obvious that a source tarball is a mere > collective work, or "aggregation" as the GPL calls it. What, > then, is the status of a binary compiled from the tarball? > It evidently is a derivative of the collection; is it a > derivative of the source works as well? > >Larry says (in effect) no; Eben says yes. Infinite are the arguments >of mages. > >-- >"But I am the real Strider, fortunately," John Cowan >he said, looking down at them with his face [EMAIL PROTECTED] >softened by a sudden smile. "I am Aragorn son http://www.ccil.org/~/cowan >of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can http://www.reutershealth.com >save you, I will." --LotR Book I Chapter 10 >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
