Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:43 On 3/25/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Wow. Hyman, I agree with you 100% with the caveat that static > linking doesn't change anything. It's mere aggregation Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, since even when your conclusions are correct you seldom arrive at them through correct reasoning. Your error with respect to static linking is an example; a statically linked program is not a mere aggregation of its components.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:50 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 12:00 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > An anthology is "mere aggregation" of literary works. > > ... > > Think of shipping a pile of e-books in own file. That's what static > > linking is as far as copyright is concerned because relocation and > > symbol resolution are irrelevant details regarding copyright. > > No, both of these statements are wrong. See 17 USC 101 > <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101> > A �collective work� is a work, such as a periodical issue, > anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, > constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are > assembled into a collective whole. Why do you think that "assembled" doesn't fall under "mere aggregation"? > > A �compilation� is a work formed by the collection and assembling Why do you think that "collection and assembling" doesn't fall under "mere aggregation"? Hyman, please stop ignoring the facts. Facts such as http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX� AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " Note that Red Hat's collective work contains tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: Alexander Terekhov on 25 Mar 2010 12:51 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 12:33 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Wow. Hyman, I agree with you 100% with the caveat that static > > linking doesn't change anything. It's mere aggregation > > Your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant, since even when > your conclusions are correct you seldom arrive at them through > correct reasoning. Your error with respect to static linking > is an example; a statically linked program is not a mere > aggregation of its components. Sez who? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.)
From: Hyman Rosen on 25 Mar 2010 12:51 On 3/25/2010 12:50 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Why do you think that "assembled" doesn't fall under "mere aggregation"? > Why do you think that "collection and assembling" doesn't fall under > "mere aggregation"? Do you think that leaving out the portion of the law which shows you are wrong is convincing? <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101> in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship
From: David Kastrup on 25 Mar 2010 12:51
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> writes: > On 3/25/2010 11:30 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> It would appear that you are not familiar with the realities of dynamic >> linking on UNIX-like operating systems. Dynamically linked libraries >> (we are not talking about Windows DLLs here) are carefully versioned and >> tend to become incompatible with their predecessors pretty regularly. >> That's why you need to compile a program using dynamic libraries with >> the corresponding header versions for the API versioning. > > That's irrelevant. If you do not copy and distribute the library as > part of the program, then the license of the library cannot affect > the right to copy and distribute the program. If the program can't be compiled (and successfully prelinked) without inclusion of the corresponding library headers, it is somewhat strange to argue that the creation of the binaries is an act independent from the library, just because the _binaries_ of the library are loaded at a later point of time. You may be ferociously defending your own legal theories, but as long as nobody wants actually to rely on such a theory to a degree where he is willing to let himself be taken to court over it, that's academical. -- David Kastrup |