On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes: > > >> >> 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. > >> > >> Again, irrelevant. If your implementation puts things in macros, > >> that's your problem. > > > > Uh, what? > > > > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my > > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your* > > problem. I don't even know what you're trying to say here--"you put > > your copyrighted code in a header and I copied it into my object > > file--that's your problem, not mine!" doesn't make any sense at all. > > The only reasonable way to use your library (which for this discussion > shall be assumed to have been legally obtained), is to compile > programs using its header files, and link these programs against it. That's fine if you're building the program for your own use -- absent a EULA prohibiting certain uses of the work, you've got no problems (since copyright law doesn't dictate use). However, if you attempt to distribute your compiled work, with my implementation bits in them, you do need to comply with the licence of my implementation in regards to your redistribution of my copyrighted work. The issue at hand is whether the compilation phase creates an anthology work (AKA mere aggregation, I believe), or a derivative work. Are you taking the position that not even aggregation takes place during compilation? - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature