"Derivative Work" for Software Defined

[Lawrence E. Rosen]

> Since it is settled that object code is a derivative work of 
> its source code, it seems to me to be maximally perverse to 
> argue that object code is not a derivative work of *part* of 
> its source code.  A fortiori, the static-linking case seems 
> to me uncontroversial even in the absence of a case on all 
> fours with it.

Did I argue that?  When?  I may be perverse, but "maximally" so?

> > I am still not certain what is meant by the phrase "work 
> based on the 
> > Program."  Under your scenario, G and H are entirely independent 
> > creations.  If G+H requires merely the making of copies of 
> G and H, an 
> > act permitted without restriction by the GPL, then why is it a 
> > derivative work?  Why is that a work based on the Program?
> 
> Because G+H is not merely G concatenated with H, but the 
> result of combining compiled-G and compiled-H into an executable form.

Here we go again.  Where do you see the words "concatenated" or
"combining ... into an executable form" anywhere in copyright law or in
the GPL?  What do those words mean?  What is to make your interpretation
of those words have any importance to a federal judge?

I'm not deliberately pretending that I don't speak English.  I know what
those words mean in common parlance.  

/Larry

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3