On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:29:21PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote: > On 09-08-2004 17:14, "MJ Ray" <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > > >> Netatalk is absolutely NO derivate of openssl. > > > > From a quick inspection, I don't think that will be true for all of a > > netatalk binary compiled with openssl-related parts enabled. I think > > you realised this in your later message. > > No. This is untrue. I just realised that Netatalk, just like most binary > distributions are *dynamically* compiled. Not statically. Yeah, old argument, short answer: it's wrong. Your binary does not need to contain a copy of their binary in order to be a derivative of it. Your binary is based upon their binary. That is enough. "Derivative work" here is a legal term. Your entirely arbitrary definition is not what it means. In colloquial English: If you use their code, you have created a derivative work of their code. All code used in a GPLed project must be available under the terms of the GPL. That is the whole point of the GPL. We can't say that in legal discussions because 'use' means something else there (specifically, the act of running the code) - and damnit, it's too imprecise. Please don't jump up and down upon the greasy smear on the pavement where this horse once stood. We've done this one *so* *many* *times*. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature