On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes: > > >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work > >> on another original work independently of what the compiler and linker > >> will do in the future. > > > > I repeat: No, but the resulting .o file may be derived from another > > work that the compiler also read while producing it. > > The object file may contain bits from header files, or whatever, but > this has no bearing on the distributability of it. Nonsense. Literal copying is always copyright infringement. > They only found > their way there as the result of implementation details. Under your rather strange theory, copying a file can never be copyright infringement, because the way cp moves the bits around is just an 'implementation detail'. So presumably you don't think copyright infringement using a computer is possible. > Allowing the > a particular method of implementation to stretch the reach of > copyright in such a way would be absurd, and this is what "fair use" > is about. Fair use is an American perversion. It does not exist in most of the rest of the world in anything like the same form. Anything that relies on the American notion of "fair use" is non-free, because in the UK that means "Non-commercial use only". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature