Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
Raul Miller wrote:
>On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
>
>>Suppose the libc runtime is given in some system by a work named
>>gpld_libc. Is hello_world.c a derivative work of gpld_libc ? I
>>don't think so.
>>
>>#include <stdio.h>
>>
>>int main(int, char**)
>>{
>> puts("Hi");
>> return 0;
>>}
>>
>>
>>What is a dynamically compiled file hello_world? An intangible
>>medium containing: my hello_world.c work, translated automatically
>>+ (possibly) some (non-protectable by virtue of defining an
>>interface) bits grinded by the compiler/linker, extracted from
>>gpld_libc (eg, compiler macros, etc). Can I distribute it under
>>any license I see fit? Yes, I think so.
>
>That depends on what went into the binary.
>
Usually, in a dynamically-linked binary (as is the case you
responded to), the only links extraneous to the original work are
those that are not protectable.
>
>For example, if hello_world now provides fourth order Runga-Kutta
>solutions, I'd probably need to know whether the code which
>provides this functionality is licensed such that I can
>redistribute it.
>
I object, because this paragraph is irrelevant. I already stated
what is hello_world.c, and it's unreasonable to think that its
dynamically linking would provide or even contain
Runga-Kutta-whatever.
>If hello_world does nothing more than print a string, this might
>not be a big issue. Or it might be. For example, if "print a
>string" requires a full copy of some proprietary firmware because
>the compiler target was an emulator for some proprietary hardware.
>
I will do my "repeated assertion" act: It's a dynamically linked
executable, for the love of $DEITY!
>
>I"ll avoid presenting any GPL examples, since that seems overly
>contentious.
>
Oh, but those are the juicy ones.
-- HTH Massa
Reply to: