Re: module license taints kernel.

On Nov 27, 10:59 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You can claim to have refuted any argument of the type "X is just like
Y" by showing that there is some difference between X and Y.

To the contrary, you try to make an argument of type 'X is just like
Y' by showing that there is a superficial similarity between the two.
Something like 'if we generously ignore the differences, the topics
are actually fairly similar'. Quel surprise.

I believe I did just that. Both linking and archiving are mechanical
combinations of the two works for purely functional purposes. Both
produce a final output that provide combined bits of the two input
works. Neither creates a new work and neither requires any creativity.
For copyright purposes, there is no significant difference at all.

Both linkers and archivers "mechanically" combine two works without
any creativity. The result is the same as the input -- the two
original works aggregated.

This sentence is in itself nonsensical, because an 'aggregation of two
things' is obviously different from 'two separate things'. If it
wasn't, why would a program be needed to create it?

Again, you have to show why the difference matters in context. Of
course there's a difference literally speaking. Even two apples have
to be in different places.

For copyright purposes, it's just like putting two DVDs in the same
box. The output is the same as the input -- the two original works.

For copyright purposes, the distinction is creative combination that
can create a new derivative work. Neither linkers nor archivers can do
this. For copyright purposes, they are the same process.

This is as undisputed as 'the sun rises in the early morning' and as
relevant 'for copyright purposes' (which you yourself
state). Consequently, this perspective can be dropped entirely from
the discussions.

Then what are we arguing about? If we both agree that for copyright
purposes linking and archiving are the same, then we should be able to
agree that neither creates a derivative work and neither extends
copyright protection of the "input" works to the "output work" because
there is no "output work" for copyright purposes.

DS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Trolltech QT license question
    ... David Schwartz wrote: ... is not a derivative work of for copyright purposes. ... I, the interface, probably does not exist as a distinct protectable ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: Trolltech QT license question
    ... It may be "derived from" in the normal English usage of those words, ... is not a derivative work of for copyright purposes. ... I, the interface, probably does not exist as a distinct protectable ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)