Re: Question About GNU General Public License

[Isaac]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:23:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Just for the record, I mentioned this once already: dynamic linking
>> enters a lot of binary addresses into a program, making it an image
>> in memory that is completely dependent and "linked" with the library
>> in question.  Calling dlopen from inside of a module to load a
>> library and call its functions explicitly instead of by linking
>> doesn't.
> 
> So what? Linking (both static and dynamic) is the same as framing 
> and mounting.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

I don't know that the 9th circuits decision has been overruled.  While I
believe that the 9th Circuit did get it wrong, all this case really shows
is that different courts can arrive at different answers concerning
what constitutes a derivative works.

Cases like Sega and Connectix which I believe have been mentioned already in
this thread support the argument that linking to a library does not
necessarily create a derivative work based on the library.  

Cases like the Teddy Ruxpin case involving third party tapes for a 
talking moving bear and Duke Nukem involving third party game levels
for a video game support the opposite contention.  In those case the
court found that the third party infringed despite the fact that
none of the original work appeared in the derivative works.  

Isaac