Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:10:57PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> Concluding: when you write a ".c" file, it is or not a derivative work >> >> on another original work independently of what the compiler and linker >> >> will do in the future. >> > >> > I repeat: No, but the resulting .o file may be derived from another >> > work that the compiler also read while producing it. >> >> The object file may contain bits from header files, or whatever, but >> this has no bearing on the distributability of it. > > Nonsense. Literal copying is always copyright infringement.
Unless you had permission to make copies, which the GPL explicit grants you. We were talking about GPL'd stuff here, right? >> They only found their way there as the result of implementation >> details. > > Under your rather strange theory, copying a file can never be > copyright infringement, because the way cp moves the bits around is > just an 'implementation detail'. So presumably you don't think > copyright infringement using a computer is possible. You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting what I said. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]