Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 07:57:36

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
>> the doctrine of first sale.
> So what you are saying is that GPL/LGPL is unenforceable? So that all
> software that uses GPL has in fact no-license at all and that regular
> copyright law rules?

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.

Obviously if you _modify_ gpl.hpp or gpl.o, you are creating a derivative
work and the GPL applies in its full glory.

That's how I understand Alexander's posts.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at