Re: Linux and GPLv2
Scripsit Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> > Basically, ".h" bits are *not* copyrightable.
>> Under what theory do you come to that conclusion? Note that a .h
>> file can contain more than function prototypes, and function
>> prototypes don't have to be in a .h file.
> Whoa, slow down, cowboy! Re-read what I have written up there: <<".h"
> _bits_ are not copyrightable>>. Now take a deep breath.
Deep breath taken. I still want to know why you think bits are treated
differently by copyright just because they happen to be in a file
whose name ends in .h.
Well, of course bits in general are not copyrightable. The digits 0
and 1 are everybody's property. A particular sequence of bits can,
however, form a copy of a copyrightable work.
> The thing is: it is considered by USofA and other countries case law
> that the bits that are at compile/link time from a .h file (as you
> mentioned down here, as macros and inline functions) are not really
> being "included" in the work, but are in reality being "referenced"
> on it.
Inline functions are certainly being included in the machine code that
comes out of the compiler, at least if they are called by the rest of
the compilation unit.
> extern char **__err_msgs;
> #define perror(s) (fprintf(stderr,"%d:%s:%s\n",errno,__err_msgs[errno]))
> Is "myfile.c" a derivative work on "errno.h"? The answer is NO.
Of course. But myfile.o might have been if perror() were complex
enough to leave any room for expressive choice.
> In the Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison process, bits that come
> from a ".h" by way of its interface (as opposed to "by way of its
> implementation") are filtered OUT in the filtration phase.
The compiler does not even know which bits in it input come from .h
file and which come from a .c file. It has no means of filtering on
them specifically. (Well, excluding #line markers, but they should
*not* influence the machine code being generated).
--
Henning Makholm "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."
Reply to: