On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 02:02:55AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Mr. Foo is the author of a Makefile, covered by the GPL. Mr. Bar wants to > > use it in his work. He is allowed to do so, as he can read in section 2: > > Mr. Bar does not need to read through to section 2 - the second > paragraph of section 0 is enough: > > | Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > | covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > | running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program > | is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > | Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > | Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. > > Now, a makefile is essentially a program written in the 'make' > language. Mr. Bar is allowed to run this program and use it to turn > his own source into his own executable. That does not give mr. Foo > any sort of intellectual rights to the executable, since the > executable is not a "derived" from anything mr. Foo wrote.
This is a very interesting interpretation, and I agree with it. But only if the Makefile is not changed at all, and if it does not "suck in" any of the source code of the original program. Actually I would be very surprised if there would be any situation were such a procedure would be useful. > > Note the "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of > > derivative ot collective works based on the Program." Nowhere you can find a > > discrimination of Makefiles or source code. There are no technical features. > > It is irrelevant HOW you use the header file, if you use it at all, you are > > forming a work based on it. > > This is wrong. No matter what mr. Foo says in his license statement, > he can not claim any rights that intellectual property law simply does > not give him. Since IP law does not in the first place consider > mr. Bar's executable a deriviation from mr. Foo's makefile, what > mr. Foo thinks about the topic is IRRELEVANT. In the very restrictive situation above, you are right. However, this discussion got a bit side tracked. Originally, we were talking about header files and dynamically linking. As you didn't address this point in your reply, can I take it that you agree with my argumentation? (Replace "makefile" with "header file"). Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
