Can Java code EVER be GPLd, at all?
Jules Bean
jmlb2 at hermes.cam.ac.uk
Mon Nov 15 21:48:25 UTC 1999
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Justin Wells wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 1999 at 10:22:03PM -0800, Arandir wrote:
>
> > What about cases where the developer uses preprocessing macros to determine at
> > compile time which library to link to. In such a case there could be code that
> > says:
> > #ifdef HAVE_JW_LIB
> > foo = coolFunc(cool params);
> > #else
> > foo = coolFunc(mundane params);
> > #endif
>
> According the my language above, the test would be whether the program was
> "fully functional" either way. If it is--then this is fine, and the code
> linking into my library does not need to be covered by my license. If it
> is only fully functional when my code was present, then I think that it
> would fall under the "derived work" categorization.
>
> Assuming I can make that stick..
Justin, I think you're falling into the 'reductio ad absurdum' trap.
There needn't always be a watertight, logical definition. The fact is
that the judgement about whether or not something is a derived work is
exactly that - a judgement. Situations which may be 'logically' similar
may differ in important subjective ways - the importance of the
interaction between the two works concerned, for example.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules at jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules at debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2 at hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list