"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:08:59 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Combining X+Y in the way that you have described is anything but >> mechanical: it is a task which typically takes a skilled programmer a >> great amount of time and thought. Different programmers might do it >> in different ways. I'm not referring here to the work done by ld, but >> to the process of building a new program which has libfoo as a >> component. > > I agree that competent build integration is hard; I've done it many > times, and it's real work. But "work" isn't the criterion for > copyright; it's "inclusion of copyright material". No matter how > complex the ld incantation required, the action performed by that > incantation is mechanical and un-creative. The ld incantation might > be a copyrightable fragment, but X+Y isn't a copyrightable collection. > I think (IANAL). And in any case it isn't a derivative work.
I largely addressed this in a separate message I just sent, so don't feel obliged to reply here as well -- but I'm not talking about the build integration. I'm talking about programming. >> Additionally, the program ultimately delivered to the user isn't X >> with some minor bits of Y. It contains big chunks of Y -- one per >> function used, at least -- directly copied. Just being in a different >> memory space isn't enough to change the relationship between the >> creative parts of the works. The program vim encompasses a copy of >> libc. > > Do you have precedent on this? Check out the Lexmark decision for an > example of how a court will slice things along a "functional vs. > expressive" plane to find that one piece of software that uses another > doesn't infringe its copyright unless a human has selected expressive > portions for copying into the flow of the new work's source code. I think you've missed my point here -- > Lifting an implementation from one code base and placing it in another > is copyright infringement (Cadence v. Avant!, etc.). Calling the > implementation via a public API isn't. And as for the "header > fragments" bit, I would expect a court to rule that they're entirely > functional and, even if they weren't, there's an implied license to > use them for their functional purpose. -- yup, definitely. I'm not convinced by header fragments either. I'm talking about the entire copy of libc put onto my system when I say "apt-get install vim". -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
