On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:28:26PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> You've left out:
> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> Someone had to comply with these provisions when creating the derivative
> work, or it's not a legal derivative work. Correct?
When I take, say, /bin/ls, and run it under fakeroot (and thus link it
with libfakeroot.so.0, aiui), I'm not (afaik) causing the resulting modified
file (that's only ever in memory) to carry prominent notice that I changed
the files, and I've no idea if the date of the change is stored anywhere.
Does that mean my running ls under fakeroot is a violation of the
GPL? After all, both fakeroot and ls are under the GPL.
If not, then presumably I've done exactly the same things to satisfy 2(a)
when I run some non-free program with a GPLed library, or vice-versa. 2(b)
doesn't apply since I'm not distributing, and 2(c) almost certainly
doesn't apply since I'm not making a non-interactive program interactive.
Personally, I'd've thought making the necessary copies in RAM to run the
program would come under the general permissions for "the act of running
the Program". I'm pretty sure there are explicit provisions to allow that
in .au copyright law, fwiw.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpnYG5sbYBTl.pgp
Description: PGP signature