Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 04:11:22PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>
>> > Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but
>> > mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a
>> > great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it
>> > in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but
>> > to the process of building a new program which has libfoo as a
>> > component.
>> >
>> > Additionally, the program ultimately delivered to the user isn't X
>> > with some minor bits of Y. It contains big chunks of Y -- one per
>> > function used, at least -- directly copied. Just being in a different
>> > memory space isn't enough to change the relationship between the
>> > creative parts of the works. The program vim encompasses a copy of
>> > libc.
>>
>> Wrong. A dynamically linked program in ELF format (the most common on
>> Linux systems) contains a list of undefined symbols, and a list of
>> sonames to search for those symbols. I have a hard time seeing how
>> this would make a program derived from the library. If multiple
>> independent implementations of the library exist, which would the
>> program be derived from?
>
> You've got the causality backwards here. The program is linked to the
> libraries because it is a derivative of the libraries. Not the other
> way around.
>
> Derivation is something that happens when you *write* the program. Not
> when you build it.
How many times does it have to be stated that *using* an API does not
form a derivative work of *any* implementation of the API? Any other
interpretation invariably leads to contradictions.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com
Reply to: