X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_NEUTRAL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4FA36CDD.3080705@cs.utoronto.ca> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 23:45:01 -0600 From: Ryan Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Licensing questions References: <4FA281E3 DOT 4020008 AT samsung DOT com> <4FA2870D DOT 1030604 AT samsung DOT com> <4FA28961 DOT 2010407 AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca> <4FA28F35 DOT 6060000 AT samsung DOT com> <4FA29070 DOT 1060300 AT gmail DOT com> <20120503152458 DOT GB22355 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4FA36B67 DOT 6080305 AT samsung DOT com> In-Reply-To: <4FA36B67.6080305@samsung.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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 >> GPLv* >> 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. IANAL, tho. Ryan -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple