Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-07 09:00:12


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.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk