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 <ryan DOT johnson AT cs DOT utoronto DOT ca>
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> <CA+sc5mnHw0CuSzaPiAV4ALQVEKs6_Nc20JrEvu-r121nZU3REg AT mail DOT gmail 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: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
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