On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:22:21PM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > > your printpi program is clearly derivative of printf > > Because it significantly transforms, adapts, or recasts printf? That > seems a bit of a stretch to me, and I don't think it's unreasonable > to argue that the use of printf to communicate the result is merely > a detail in what is otherwise a complex program to calculate pi. I > could change my program to communicate its results by making the > keyboard LEDs blink without changing its nature.
and if you did that, then printpi would not be derivative of printf. arguably, if your pi program had several different output options, and could be run without the existence of printf, it would not be derivative of printf. but if printf is essential to the functioning of printpi (as actually distributed, not as it _could have been_ written) then i think it would be seen as derivative. i don't think it matters much that printpi is using printf rather than extending printf. i think what matters is the extent to which printf is a part of printpi. -rishab
