Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> "Michael K. Edwards" <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> [no longer relevant to debian-java, I think]
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:28:57 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen
>>> <bts@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> You are ignoring the
>>>> creative act performed by the programmer who arranged calls to
>>>> functions within libc. That was creative effort on his part which
>>>> critically involves a copy of libc.
>>>
>>> As is the creation of a critical essay on libc. But that's not a
>>> derivative work either.
>>
>> But an annotated edition of libc is. A program seems far more similar
>> to an annotated edition than to a critical essay -- since it includes
>> a copy of the library, after all, and pointers into it.
>
> Now you stopped making sense. A program includes only references to a
> library, not the library itself.
The program makes neither functional nor creative sense without the
library component. A binary -- which we usually think of as a program
-- is only part of a program. All of the libraries included in it are
part of it also; that's why we ship them along.
> A distribution, e.g. Debian, might include both the program and the
> library. I don't see a problem with distributing a collection of
> programs, where some of them can be combined in ways that violate
> some license, as long as all of them still have legitimate uses.
I don't see a problem with that either. But the default library
loaded for some soname should probably be legal to *distribute* as a
combination with anything Debian is distributing set to load it.
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: