Re: inclusion of header files lead to derived works
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> > Now, a makefile is essentially a program written in the 'make'
> > language. Mr. Bar is allowed to run this program and use it to turn
> > his own source into his own executable. That does not give mr. Foo
> > any sort of intellectual rights to the executable, since the
> > executable is not a "derived" from anything mr. Foo wrote.
> This is a very interesting interpretation, and I agree with it.
> But only if the Makefile is not changed at all, and if it does not "suck in"
> any of the source code of the original program.
If mr. Foo happened to have modified the makefile before using it, the
modified makefile would still be covered by GPL hence allow mr. Foo or
anyone else to use it - and still the makefile's copyright does not
infect the copyright of the data that gets processed by the makefile.
> Originally, we were talking about header files and dynamically
> linking. As you didn't address this point in your reply, can I take
> it that you agree with my argumentation?
No. I simply did not want to repeat the same points excessively.
In fact I think I'll EOD here and let every reader choose his
conviction from the arguments he thinks are most valid.