Re: What exactly is Derivative ?
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > No, the header files are really included inthe derived work.
> > That is a postulate for which you have provided no arguments. The
> > header files are no more a part of the object file than this article
> > is legally derived from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary because
> > I just looked up the spelling of "conscious" there.
> Excuse me, but I can't see your point.
The point is that "the compiler needs to read the header files" is a
different assertation from, and does not imply "the output from the
compiler contains translations of parts of the header files".
The first statement is true, the second is false.
The output from the compiler contains some machine code, all of which
is a translation of the code I wrote (assuming that the headers did
not contain inline function definitions or nontrivial function-like
macros). There is no trace of the header files in the machine code. It
also contains a relocation table. Some of the entries in the
relocation table contain function names referring to functions in the
library. The names also appeared in the header file, however a
function name in itself is not copyright protected. Also, there will
only be relocation entries for the name if I mentioned it myself in
the code I wrote.
> And you tell me that the header file is not part of the resulting binary
> because it can't be reckognized anymore?
No, I'm telling you the header file is not part of the resulting
binary simply because it isn't there.
None of the expressive choices made when preparing the header files
have any influence on the contents of the binary. Hence the copyright
protection on the header file (which does not protect the information
context in it, but only the particular choices of expression made
while writing it) does not apply to the binary.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: