[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL and other licences
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: GPL and other licences |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:22:31 +0000 |
User-agent: |
tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.35 (i686)) |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:24:54
+0100:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> For example, just last week I needed a function which searches
>> backwards a maximum of 3000 bytes from the end of file for "Local
>> Variables:", and then deletes any following lines containing "mode:"
>> or "eval:". I extracted the code which did the searching out of an
>> existing function, then added the bits to do the deletion.
> fancy_file("Alan Mackenzie")
> .locate_backwards_from_end("Local Variables:", 3000)
> .delete_any_following_lines_containing("mode:", "eval:");
The actual source of the function I'm talking about (which is available
in SourceForge) is materially different from the above. The extracted
code (what you've called ".locate_backwards_from_end") has been
extensively changed from the original, yet is recognisably derived from
it.
> You grabbed some code for locate_backwards_from_end() and changed it.
Yes.
> I authored delete_any_following_lines().
No. There is no contribution from you in the function I am talking
about. You are trying to hypothesise about a different scenario.
>> The resulting function is in no way a "compilation" - it is a
>> derivative of the original function.
> The resulting overall program is a compilation of your work and my
> work. Your work (function locate_backwards_from_end() that contains
> someone else's *modified* code) may well be a derivative work. That
> doesn't change the status of the resulting overall program -- it's
> still a compilation.
No. The function was written by me, a substantial part of it having been
derived from an existing function written by somebody else. The function
I wrote is derived from the original. It is not a "compilation" of my
work with somebody else's, since the constituent parts don't retain their
separate identity.
Think of an embryo - it is not a "compilation" of an egg and a sperm,
since the latter have long since lost their distinctive identity. The
embryo is _derived_ from the egg and sperm, though.
> Got it now?
No. It doesn't seem like you have either.
By the way, is your native language English?
> alexander.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").
- Re: GPL and other licences, (continued)
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alan Mackenzie, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alan Mackenzie, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, David Kastrup, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/09
- Re: GPL and other licences, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Bernd Jendrissek, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL and other licences, Bernd Jendrissek, 2006/02/13