Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation
On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all.
> Here's proof to the contrary:
> <quote>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form...
> </quote>
Okay. So GPL.3 can be applied *either* to a program *or* a work that
happens to be based on a program. The "source" it speaks about is
the source of whatever one applies it to. If I apply GPL.3 to get
permission to distribute the object code for an entire program, I
must provide source for the entire program. If I apply GPL.3 to
get permission to distribute object code for a work based on the
program, I only have to provide source for that work.
> > Perhaps. But I don't think the author of a program has the legal power
> > to prevent that.
> I think you should back up this kind of claim with a reference to the
> relevant copyright law or legal precedents.
I don't know how to back a claim that something is *not* in the law with a
reference to the law itself.
Does Melville ever mention complex numbers in "Moby Dick"? If you answer
no, I expect you to back that claim with a reference to the relevant
chapter of "Moby Dick".
> [It's fairly clear that the GPL says that this kind of practice is
> forbidden,
Not to me.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: