Can Java code EVER be GPLd, at all?

[Jules Bean]

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.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/