Peter Dimov wrote: [...]
He is saying that when you do
g++ nongpl.o gpl.o
you are creating a compilation, not a derivative work.
His other claim is that when you do
#include "gpl.hpp" #include "nongpl.hpp"
int main() { gpl( 5 ); nongpl( 6 ); }
you are creating a compilation of gpl.hpp, nongpl.hpp and your own copyrighted work, not a derivative work of gpl.hpp and nongpl.hpp.
Yep (if you link it statically or use templated stuff). "Incorporation" of pure declarative headers/use of API is noninfringing because according to the AFC test elements dictated by external considerations are filtered out when trying to determine whether there is copyright infringement. http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004450.html Read also this (quite interesting and informative piece): http://www.innovationlaw.org/lawforum/pages/heer.doc (The Case against Copyright Protection of Non-literal Elements of Computer Software)
Obviously if you _modify_ gpl.hpp or gpl.o, you are creating a derivative work and the GPL applies in its full glory.
Yep.
That's how I understand Alexander's posts.
http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004144.html http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004152.html regards, alexander.