Re: Linux and GPLv2
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
>>
>> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work
>> >> on another original work independently of what the compiler and linker
>> >> will do in the future.
>> >
>> > I repeat: No, but the resulting .o file may be derived from another
>> > work that the compiler also read while producing it.
>>
>> The object file may contain bits from header files, or whatever, but
>> this has no bearing on the distributability of it.
>
> Nonsense. Literal copying is always copyright infringement.
Unless you had permission to make copies, which the GPL explicit
grants you. We were talking about GPL'd stuff here, right?
>> They only found their way there as the result of implementation
>> details.
>
> Under your rather strange theory, copying a file can never be
> copyright infringement, because the way cp moves the bits around is
> just an 'implementation detail'. So presumably you don't think
> copyright infringement using a computer is possible.
You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting what I said.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: