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
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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk