Fri May 4 05:45:00 GMT 2012
On 03/05/2012 11:38 PM, Fedin Pavel wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 19:24, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Right. I've noticed the incompleteness of elf.h from time to time
>> too but
>> extending it would be tedious since you can't just cut/paste from a
>> file. Maybe one of the BSDs has something more complete these days?
> By the way, interesting question. It raises up from time to time here
> and there, but noone gives the answer...
> Is there any strict definition of "derived work"?
> The problem is: we have some #define in GPLed code. And i want to
> make some non-GPLed code interoperable. Consequently, i need the same
> #define. Exactly the our case. Of course i could copy-paste the code,
> and it would definitely be "derived work". But what if i don't
> copy-paste this code, but retype it by hands? Still a copy? Well, add
> some more cleanup. Take a piece of paper, write down all names and
> values. Drink lots of whiskey (wine, vodka) to erase own memory ;-)
> Next day take this paper and write own include. Is it still "derived
> work" ?
> But, after all, we still have only names and values, nothing more,
> and no matter how we made our version. Does "using the same name"
> automatically mean "derived work"? But in this case IMHO this as a
> nonsense. There's even an anecdote about Microsoft having to
> opensource all their stuff because their code uses GPLed "i++"
> fragment. Well, copyright infringement applies here as well, based on
> the reverse claim. :)
Well, according to the EU commission's very recent ruling, at least, you
can't copyright APIs, which I would consider this elf stuff to be.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin