[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > >>If the interface is optional, it sounds like there is code in it which >>_only_ serves the purpose of interfacing to readline and does not make >>any sense otherwise. In that case, it is hard to claim that the whole >>kaboodle was not intended to be linked with readline. > > Oh, it was vertainly intended to be (optionally) linked with readline. > >>No. It means that when the derivative is _created_ (and the binary >>in-memory image _is_ a derivative of the parts loaded into it) by a >>_dependent_ third party, some of the responsibility for that act might >>still lie with the distributor. > > But the GPL only covers distribution.
And copyright law covers derivatives. > To put it another way, on your theory the author has done two > things: The whole hinges on the question whether he has done two things or one. Namely whether they can be legally considered completely independent. > distribute a work which is not a derivative of readline, and > contribute to the creation of a derivative of readline. Which of > these requires a licence? Trick question already insinuating that the acts are independent. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
