Re: inclusion of header files lead to derived works

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

On 23 Mar 1999, Henning Makholm wrote:

> Mr. Bar does not need to read through to section 2 - the second
> paragraph of section 0 is enough:
> 
> | Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> | covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
> | running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
> | is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
> | Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
> | Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Note that "derived" is not defined by the GPL; it is a standard
> term from intellectual property law. [...]

[ This discussion is interesting ].

Do you mean that #include <foobar.h> should be considered as mere "use" of
a header file; the same way that we "use" gcc to compile a program?

I think we should draw the line somwehere between what we call "source
code" and what we call "compiler tools".

So the question would be: Is a header file more likely to be considered to
be in the "source code" side or in the "compiler tools" side?

[ In the example, a Makefile is certainly a program written in the 'make'
  language, but for our purposes, it is also part of the "source" for
  the program itself ].

Thanks.

-- 
 "c1679991bd2a2bd05475c380f5a825f5" (a truly random sig)