[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question About GNU General Public License
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Question About GNU General Public License |
Date: |
14 Jul 2004 02:17:49 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Isaac <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> writes:
> On 13 Jul 2004 13:42:19 +0200, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> >
> >> David Kastrup wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > > > You better clue yourself in about what linking does. It resolves
> >> > > > symbols.
> >> > >
> >> > > That doesn't change the program.
> >> >
> >> > Not the original, but the copy (linked in memory or on disk).
> >>
> >> And Java and MS IL JITs (and installers) also "change"/"resolve"
> >> (at runtime and/or installation time) the bytecode (resolution
> >> of links aside for a moment). Good luck trying to convince a
> >> judge that people using Java and MS CLI are all criminals (MS
> >> doesn't usually authorize creation of derivative works of their
> >> code).
> >
> > And you'd claim that the usage licence of those programs allow taking,
> > analyzing and distributing the resulting memory image after linking
> > with their compiler? So that, in effect, you would be allowed to use
> > this process for generating a symbol table from the library and
> > distribute this without restriction?
> >
> > Care to quote the passage from their licences that permits this, or
> > some court law that states that symbol tables are not considered
> > derived works?
>
> Is a symbol table a creative work?
If it is not derived from some original, it is _very_ creative to
imagine likely code sequences that would have just-that arrangement
with just-that distance.
If it _is_ derived, well then, it _is_ derived. It is certainly not
creative to take all the even-numbered bytes of some work. It is
also not creative to take all the odd-numbered bytes of some work.
Pasting them together is not creative. But the result, uncreative as
it is, certainly falls under copyright. Not because it was derived
by a creative processed, but because it is derived from something
copyrightable. Even though the derivation was very dull.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, (continued)
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Isaac, 2004/07/18
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Lee Hollaar, 2004/07/18
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, telford, 2004/07/18
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, David Kastrup, 2004/07/19
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/19
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Isaac, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Isaac, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/13
- Message not available
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, David Kastrup, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, David Kastrup, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, David Kastrup, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/13
- Re: Question About GNU General Public License, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/13