Byron A Jeff wrote: [...] > I took it to mean that he started with the LGPL code base and added code > to it. I also took it to mean that his code could not function > independantly from the original LGPL code base.
External factors are totally irrelevant. Copyright is about expression, not dependencies. No MS DirectX program can function without MS DirectX (broken and incomplete WINE stuff aside for a moment), but that doesn't make DirectX programs derivative works of DirectX. > > So just to be clear by asking a question. If I generate a function > library of 50 routines, and you add 3 routines that cannot function > independantly from my 50 routines, then you're stating that your > 3 routines are a wholly independant work from my 50? Of course. > How can it be > an independant work if it cannot function in isolation? Easy. External factors are beside the point. Software is protected as literary work. [...] > http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html And why did you omit "There is a special exception in Section 117 that permits the owner of a copy of a computer program "to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation" part? Read also VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations. And visit III.B.3.b. External Factors at http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html ("An example of an element dictated by external factors is the calling sequence for a library routine..."). Hth. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
