Re: Linux and GPLv2
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 10:55:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> 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?
No, all of the above was spoken in very broad terms, not specifically
about the GPL. You said "The object file may contain bits from header
files, or whatever, but this has no bearing on the distributability of
it", which is false: if you create an object file with substantial bits
from my header file, and I grant you no permission to redistribute the
header file, the object file is undistributable as a direct result of
containing bits from my header files.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: