2016-04-29 9:58 GMT+02:00 2n <thuye...@gmail.com>: > So translating header files for bindings is considered a derived work also? > And also the GNU guys and the porting of unix sofware to linux, that can't > be considered derived work. I guess it comes down to the definition of the > word "expressive" like you say, but programming languages are so precise, I > wouldn't have thought there is much room for expressiveness.
It depends on what you translate. If it's really needed to communicate with the library you link to, that may not be considered a derived work. If no creativity is involved you may say that there is no copyright on that part of the code, but I guess this strongly depends also on local jurisdictions. LPGL addresses this question for object code, see section 3: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files. The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- So, if you limit to something really essential, no copyright is claimed on it. Bye, Mosè
