gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?


From: JEDIDIAH
Subject: Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:13:17 -0500
User-agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian)

On 2008-09-16, Rjack <address@hidden> wrote:
> It is interesting to note that compiling the source code of standard
> program packages of independently authored c code (and assembler) like
> the Linux kernel does not create a derivative work. Some people think
> that compiling module1.c, module2.c, . . . into "-o prgm" translates
> the source code into a derivative work.
>
> e.g.: gcc -o prgm module1.c module2.c . . .
>
> There is absolutely *no* spark of originality added as gcc assembles the
> source code into an executable -- something thousands of people do

...it also includes it's own versions of fundemental libraries.

Something you would be aware of if you had half a clue to rant with in
this area. The other half a clue is the fact that GCC is specifically
exempt from the strong GPL.

[deletia]

    Oracle and EA can figure this out. Why can't you?

-- 
     If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of           |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either.  / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com


reply via email to

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