Hi!
> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
> readable.
>
> I've drafted summaries from a couple of different angles since VJ
> requested a "translation into English", and I think this is the most
> coherent (and least foaming-at-the-mouth) I've crafted yet. It was
> written as an answer to a private query to this effect: "I write a
> POP server and release it under the GPL. The Evil Linker adds some
> hooks to my code, calls those hooks (along some of the existing ones)
> from his newly developed program, and only provides recipients of the
> binaries with source code for the modified POP server. His code
> depends on, and only works with, this modified version of my POP
> server. Doesn't he have to GPL his whole product, because he's
> combined his work with mine?"
>
> This is a fundamental misconception. A <<product>> is not a "work
Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds
two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he
can get away with that.
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
<pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h> from his
binary-only part?
I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what
embedded people are doing; I do not think they are creating their own
headers or their own inline functions where headers contain them.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
