[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Question About GNU General Public License

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Question About GNU General Public License
Date: 14 Jul 2004 02:17:49 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50

Isaac <address@hidden> writes:

> On 13 Jul 2004 13:42:19 +0200, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> >> David Kastrup wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > > > You better clue yourself in about what linking does.  It resolves
> >> > > > symbols.
> >> > >
> >> > > That doesn't change the program.
> >> > 
> >> > Not the original, but the copy (linked in memory or on disk).  
> >> 
> >> And Java and MS IL JITs (and installers) also "change"/"resolve" 
> >> (at runtime and/or installation time) the bytecode (resolution 
> >> of links aside for a moment). Good luck trying to convince a 
> >> judge that people using Java and MS CLI are all criminals (MS 
> >> doesn't usually authorize creation of derivative works of their 
> >> code).
> > 
> > And you'd claim that the usage licence of those programs allow taking,
> > analyzing and distributing the resulting memory image after linking
> > with their compiler?  So that, in effect, you would be allowed to use
> > this process for generating a symbol table from the library and
> > distribute this without restriction?
> > 
> > Care to quote the passage from their licences that permits this, or
> > some court law that states that symbol tables are not considered
> > derived works?
> Is a symbol table a creative work? 

If it is not derived from some original, it is _very_ creative to
imagine likely code sequences that would have just-that arrangement
with just-that distance.

If it _is_ derived, well then, it _is_ derived.  It is certainly not
creative to take all the even-numbered bytes of some work.  It is
also not creative to take all the odd-numbered bytes of some work.
Pasting them together is not creative.  But the result, uncreative as
it is, certainly falls under copyright.  Not because it was derived
by a creative processed, but because it is derived from something
copyrightable.  Even though the derivation was very dull.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]